Unnamed defence expert

The appellant, Mark Broxterman, appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood.

The appeal was based on three grounds: the trial judge erred in finding reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, misapprehended the evidence regarding the approved screening device (ASD) result, and rendered an unsafe verdict due to comments about writing two judgments.

The appeal court dismissed all grounds, affirming the trial judge's findings on reasonable grounds, the reliability of the ASD result based on expert evidence, and the appropriateness of the trial judge's decision-making process.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder and his sentence of life imprisonment with 16 years of parole ineligibility.

He argued that his statements to police, which led to the discovery of his wife's cremated remains and forensic evidence in his home, were obtained in violation of his Charter rights under s. 10(b) and s. 7.

He also challenged the trial judge's use of his after-the-fact conduct to infer murderous intent and the assessment of expert bloodstain evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no Charter breaches and no errors in the trial judge's reasoning.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed, and the parole ineligibility period was reduced to 13 years to accord with the parity principle for domestic murders.