The appellant appealed a summary conviction for impaired operation of a motor vehicle contrary to ss. 253(1)(a) and 255 of the Criminal Code.
The appeal alleged that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and improperly applied the credibility analysis required by R. v. W.(D.).
The Superior Court reviewed the trial reasons and concluded that the trial judge properly assessed credibility in the context of all the evidence, including independent eyewitness testimony, and gave adequate reasons for rejecting the accused’s testimony.
The court found no misapprehension of evidence, no shifting of the burden of proof, and no palpable or overriding error.
The conviction was therefore upheld.
