The appellant appealed summary conviction findings of guilt for impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating with excess blood alcohol.
He argued the trial judge erred in finding the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest, misapprehended the evidence, and improperly assessed credibility in rejecting his testimony about the implementation of his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.
The court held that the trial judge correctly applied the legal test for reasonable and probable grounds and did not misstate the evidence regarding observations of impairment.
The trial judge’s credibility findings were entitled to deference and disclosed no palpable or overriding error.
The evidence, including observations of impairment and intoxilyzer readings, supported the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
