Murray de Vos

The appellant, Andrew Kirk, appealed his conviction for impaired driving, raising two issues: (1) whether the trial judge erred in finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, and (2) whether the trial judge erred in finding that the identity of the accused had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appeal court found that despite uncertainty regarding which specific officer made the arrest, each officer present had sufficient subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds for arrest.

On the issue of identity, the court upheld the trial judge's finding that there was overwhelming evidence from multiple witnesses, including in-dock identification, to prove the accused's identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, arguing the trial judge erred in failing to exclude Intoxilyzer readings under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant contended his s. 8 rights were violated because the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to make the breath demand, as there was no evidence the officer believed the approved screening device (ASD) was in proper working order.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to infer from circumstantial evidence that the officer reasonably believed the ASD was operating properly and provided a reliable result.