The appellant appealed a conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample, arguing that police interrupted his consultation with duty counsel and thereby breached s. 10(b) of the Charter.
He submitted that the trial judge improperly relied on demeanour from a short video clip and failed to give adequate weight to his statement that he was 'not sure' when asked when the call had ended.
The appeal court held that the impugned findings were factual and credibility-based determinations entitled to deference absent palpable and overriding error.
Considering the totality of the evidence, including the video and the officer’s testimony, the court found no reviewable error and dismissed the appeal.
