The appellant was convicted of impaired driving causing death and "over 80" causing death following a motor vehicle accident in which his cousin Aaron Knapman died.
The central issue at trial was whether the appellant or Aaron was driving at the time of the accident.
The Crown's theory was that the two had switched places after leaving a party.
The trial judge convicted the appellant based on evidence from an accident reconstructionist combined with the appellant's post-offence conduct, including multiple false statements to bystanders and police.
The appellant appealed on three grounds: that the trial judge erred in inferring guilt from disbelief of his testimony, that the trial judge erred in treating his falsehoods as fabricated statements, and that the verdict was unreasonable.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly applied the law and that the evidence, viewed as a whole, supported the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.