The appellant appealed a conviction for failing or refusing to comply with a roadside breath demand under s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.
The accused argued the trial judge erred by providing insufficient reasons, misapprehending evidence, and reversing the burden of proof regarding his explanation that illness and cold conditions prevented him from providing a sample.
The appeal court held the trial judge’s reasons were adequate and demonstrated proper credibility analysis.
The court further found no material misapprehension of evidence and concluded the trial judge properly applied the burden of proof when assessing both the elements of the offence and the defence of reasonable excuse.
The conviction was upheld.
