The appellant appealed a conviction for failing to stop a motor vehicle for police contrary to s. 249.1(1) of the Criminal Code, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to properly consider expert testimony concerning line of sight during a police pursuit.
The appellant contended that roadway configuration and intermittent loss of visual contact meant he could not have known police were pursuing him.
The court held that the trial judge was entitled to give little or no weight to the defence expert’s opinion regarding what the parties could have seen during the pursuit and that the officer’s evidence supported the findings regarding the appellant’s knowledge and conduct.
Applying the standard of palpable and overriding error, the court found no reviewable error in the trial judge’s reasoning.
The evidence reasonably supported the conclusion that the appellant knowingly failed to stop for police.
