The appellant appealed convictions for impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample under the Criminal Code.
He argued that the trial judge provided insufficient reasons, misapprehended evidence regarding impairment, failed to explain the mens rea for the refusal offence, and failed to apply the “last chance” doctrine.
The Superior Court held that although the trial judge’s reasons were brief, they were sufficient when read in light of the record and allowed for meaningful appellate review.
The court found no material misapprehension of evidence and concluded that the trial judge properly found that the appellant deliberately obstructed the breath testing process.
The “last chance” doctrine did not apply because the appellant never attempted to comply with the breath demand.
