The appellant appealed convictions for impaired operation and refusing to provide a breath sample.
He argued that the trial judge failed to properly assess whether the arresting officer’s belief of impairment was objectively reasonable, improperly relied on the refusal to provide a breath sample, and placed undue weight on demeanor evidence when comparing in-court testimony to video evidence.
The court held that the trial judge correctly applied the legal test for reasonable and probable grounds and that the factual findings—odour of alcohol, slurred speech, presence of alcohol, and difficulty opening the glove compartment—supported the officer’s belief of impairment.
The court also held that refusal evidence was admissible and could support an adverse inference under the Criminal Code.
The appeal court found no reversible error in the credibility findings or evidentiary assessment.
