The appellant appealed a conviction for impaired driving arising from erratic driving, speeding, the odour of alcohol, and physical signs of impairment observed during a traffic stop.
He argued that the trial judge failed to analyze the in-car video, failed to consider evidence consistent with sobriety, misapplied the governing impairment test, and returned an unreasonable verdict.
The appeal court held that the trial judge was not required to review every piece of evidence in detail, was entitled to rely on the officer's evidence, and correctly applied the requirement that any degree of impairment of the ability to drive is sufficient.
The findings of fact were supported by the record and attracted appellate deference.
The summary conviction appeal was dismissed.
