Julianne A. Parfett

The appellant appealed a conviction for refusing to provide breath samples under s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal argued that the trial judge failed to adequately address significant inconsistencies in the evidence of police witnesses concerning signs of impairment and the suitability of a breath sample accepted by the breathalyser machine.

The court held that the trial judge’s reasons did not explain how credibility conflicts among the officers were resolved, particularly regarding the arresting officer’s observations and the breath technician’s rejection of an accepted sample.

Applying the functional approach to adequacy of reasons articulated in Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court concluded that the reasons did not permit meaningful appellate review.

A new trial was ordered.

During a manslaughter jury trial arising from a fatal assault outside a bar, the court ruled on several evidentiary and procedural applications.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings or exclusion of a witness on the basis that police and Crown interviews improperly pressured the witness and constituted abuse of process.

The court held that informing a witness that authorities did not believe him, raising the possibility of perjury, and confronting him with conflicting evidence did not amount to oppressive or abusive conduct.

The court also permitted the Crown to cross‑examine a witness on a prior inconsistent statement under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act, finding the statement voluntary and sufficiently reliable despite the witness’s illness and reluctance.

However, the court excluded proposed circumstantial “association evidence” linking the accused to others at the bar, finding the inferential chain speculative and irrelevant to identification.