The appellant appealed a conviction for failing to provide a suitable breath sample contrary to s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code.
He argued that the trial judge’s questioning created a reasonable apprehension of bias, that fresh evidence regarding the distance between two locations should be admitted, and that the trial judge erred in taking judicial notice of the location of a nearby hotel.
The appeal court admitted the fresh evidence but held that the trial judge’s intervention did not demonstrate bias and that judicial notice of the hotel’s location was permissible.
Although the trial judge had misapprehended the precise distance between the locations, the error did not materially affect the credibility findings or the ultimate verdict.
The conviction was upheld.
