The applicant sought a stay of a driving prohibition order pending appeal of a conviction for failing to provide a breath sample contrary to the Criminal Code.
The application was brought under s. 261 of the Criminal Code.
The court considered whether the proposed appeal was not frivolous, which requires showing a viable ground of appeal that could justify appellate intervention.
Although the applicant demonstrated significant personal hardship arising from the continued prohibition, the court found the proposed unreasonable verdict argument did not disclose an arguable ground of appeal in light of the trial judge’s detailed credibility findings and application of R. v. W.(D).
The applicant failed to meet the burden of establishing that the appeal was not frivolous.
