The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving, assault with intent to resist arrest, and refusal to comply with a breath sample demand, and his sentence.
The appeal raised three grounds: alleged Charter violations concerning excessive police force (ss. 7 and 12) and the right to counsel (s. 10(b)), and an error in convicting for assault resisting arrest.
The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the police use of force was reasonable in the circumstances, that the appellant failed to diligently assert his right to counsel, and that the elements of assault with intent to resist arrest were proven.
The court clarified the distinction between the burden of proof for Charter motions (balance of probabilities) and for criminal charges (beyond a reasonable doubt), and the limited application of the "Prosper warning" for the right to counsel.