The appellant appealed summary conviction findings of guilt for impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample under the Criminal Code.
He argued the trial judge erred in admitting statements to persons in authority, misapprehended the medical evidence regarding a possible concussion, applied unequal scrutiny to defence and Crown evidence, assumed an adversarial role during questioning, and misapplied the credibility framework from R. v. W.(D.).
The appeal judge held that the trial judge correctly applied the voluntariness test and reasonably rejected the medical evidence suggesting the accused’s mind was not operating.
The court further held that the trial judge properly assessed credibility and evidence and that appellate review of factual findings on summary conviction appeal is limited to unreasonable or unsupported findings.
Finding no reversible error, the court upheld the convictions.
