M. Caroline

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit, arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

He claimed he told his trial lawyer that he had informed the arresting officer he had just finished his last drink, which would have raised a residual mouth alcohol issue.

The appeal court admitted fresh evidence but found the appellant's testimony inconsistent and not credible.

The court accepted the trial counsel's evidence that he was never told this information.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed summary conviction findings of guilt for refusing to provide a breath sample and breach of probation.

The sole ground pursued on appeal was that the trial judge improperly amended the Information before any evidence was heard.

The appeal court accepted that such an amendment would normally require consent or supporting evidence but found that defence counsel effectively consented to the amendment during the trial discussion.

Alternatively, the court held that even if the amendment was premature, no prejudice or miscarriage of justice resulted because the amendment merely corrected the wording to reflect the proper roadside demand offence.

The curative proviso under the Criminal Code therefore applied and the convictions were upheld.