The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with excess blood alcohol, arguing the trial judge erred in rejecting his 'straddle evidence' and reversing the burden of proof.
The appellant had consumed a large amount of alcohol shortly before driving (bolus drinking) and provided a toxicologist's report suggesting his blood alcohol level might have been below the legal limit at the time of driving.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, which holds that general elimination rates rarely defeat the presumption of identity under section 258(1) of the Criminal Code.
