The appellant appealed a conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.
The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence and misapplied W(D) principles, leading to an unreasonable verdict, particularly regarding the officer's lack of specific notes on the refusal.
The Crown contended the trial judge properly assessed credibility and the verdict was reasonable.
The appellate court found the trial judge's assessment of credibility reasonable, noting that the officer was extensively cross-examined.
The court affirmed that the mens rea for the offence is knowledge or awareness of the prohibited act, and the verdict was reasonable given the appellant's failure to produce a sample after four attempts.
The appeal was dismissed.
