The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.
He argued that the trial judge erred in her analysis of whether he had language deficits that interfered with his understanding of his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.
The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly applied the objective test to the arresting officer's observations and reasonably relied on video evidence to conclude the appellant understood his rights.
The trial judge's negative credibility findings regarding the appellant's testimony on his language comprehension were fatal to his claim.
