The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg under s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
He argued that the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to make an approved screening device demand and that the trial judge erred in rejecting his evidence regarding alcohol consumption.
The Summary Conviction Appeal Court held that the constellation of factors—including departure from a bar near closing time, admission of recent drinking, and bloodshot eyes—objectively supported reasonable suspicion.
The court also found no reversible error in the trial judge’s credibility findings or rejection of the defence theory that mislabelled beer bottles explained the elevated readings.
The appeal was dismissed.
