The appellant appealed her summary conviction for impaired driving and driving over 80.
At trial, the Crown relied on a toxicologist's report that assumed the appellant had not engaged in bolus drinking within 15 minutes prior to the incident.
The trial judge found sufficient circumstantial evidence to disprove bolus drinking and convicted the appellant.
On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and reversed the burden of proof.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual inferences regarding the absence of bolus drinking.
