The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, arguing that his s. 7 and s. 15 Charter rights were violated because legislative amendments to the 'evidence to the contrary' (Carter) defence were applied retrospectively to his case.
The trial began before the amendments were definitively ruled retrospective by the Court of Appeal, and the appellant had called evidence based on the pre-amendment law.
The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no unfairness or Charter violation, as the retrospectivity issue was known from the outset and the appellant was given an opportunity to call further evidence after the law was clarified.
