Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: R. v. Logue, 2016 ONCA 659

Date: 20160902

Docket: C60725

Before: Laskin, Sharpe and Miller JJ.A.

Between

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

Christopher Logue Appellant

Counsel: Solomon Friedman, for the appellant Michael Fawcett, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: August 30, 2016

On appeal from the conviction entered on April 15, 2015 by Michel Z. Charbonneau of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant appeals his conviction for impaired driving causing bodily harm. He submits that the trial judge’s finding was unreasonable. As part of his overall submission he makes two specific arguments. First, the trial judge misapprehended the evidence surrounding the appellant’s refusal to provide a breath sample because he did not take into account that the appellant was distraught over his girlfriend’s injuries. Second, the trial judge impermissibly relied on the appellant’s “lie” to the firefighter that he had not been drinking.

[2] We do not agree with the appellant’s submission. Four considerations taken together reasonably supported the trial judge’s finding that the appellant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol: first his evidence of alcohol consumption; second the accident was unexplained; third the appellant’s obstructive behaviour in the ambulance; and fourth the statutory inference available from the appellant’s refusal to give a breath sample. In our view, there was evidence that supported the trial judge’s findings underlying these four considerations.

[3] On the appellant’s two specific arguments we conclude as follows. First, at para. 108 of his reasons, the trial judge took account of the appellant’s emotional state when he refused to give a breath sample. Still, the trial judge found that the appellant was conscious and coherent when he said no. That finding was available to the trial judge on Officer Bruneau’s evidence. Second, we agree with the Crown that the appellant’s “no” answer to the question whether he was drinking was admissible. The appellant was not detained at the time and he answered without feeling compelled to do so.

[4] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

“John Laskin J.A.”

“Robert J. Sharpe J.A.”

“B.W. Miller J.A.”