The appellant appealed a conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample following a roadside demand at a border crossing.
He argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, failed to properly assess video evidence, failed to consider a medical condition affecting his ability to provide breath samples, and erred in rejecting a Charter s.10(b) right to counsel argument.
The court held that the trial judge properly applied the credibility framework in R. v. W.(D.), reasonably rejected the appellant’s evidence, and made no palpable and overriding error in assessing the evidence.
Allegations of judicial bias, collusion, and malicious prosecution were also rejected as unsupported.
The conviction and sentence were upheld.
