The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to comply with an approved screening device demand, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and that the criminalization of the refusal under the Criminal Code infringed his rights against self-incrimination and to counsel under the Charter.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not misapprehend the evidence regarding the police officer's standard practice of checking the mouthpiece.
Furthermore, the Court found that the primary goal of roadside screening is preventive, the results cannot be used at trial, and the intrusion is minimal.
Therefore, the criminalization of the refusal does not infringe the principle against self-incrimination or the right to counsel.
