The appellant appealed a summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood‑alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood under the Criminal Code.
The appeal alleged that the verdict was unreasonable because the evidence did not establish that the damaged vehicle observed by one officer was the same vehicle later found with the accused, and that the trial judge’s reasons were legally inadequate.
The court held that the circumstantial evidence—timing, proximity, and distinctive damage to the vehicle—reasonably supported the inference that the same vehicle had been observed driving moments earlier.
The court also found that the trial judge’s reasons sufficiently explained the basis for the conviction and allowed meaningful appellate review.
The appeal was dismissed.
