The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving and failing to comply with a breath demand.
He argued that the trial judge's verdicts were unreasonable, that the trial judge erred in his assessment of the evidence, and that his Charter rights were violated.
The summary conviction appeal court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact, including the identification of the appellant as the driver.
The court also held that a separate voir dire on the voluntariness of the appellant's statements was not required given the blended trial procedure and the defence's reliance on the statements.
Finally, the court upheld the trial judge's finding that the police fulfilled their informational and implementational duties under s. 10(b) of the Charter.
The appeal was dismissed.
