P. Norton

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended medical evidence regarding his uncontrolled diabetes and erred in finding no breach of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel of choice.

The Superior Court found the trial judge erred by placing the burden on the appellant to prove he did not waive his right to counsel of choice, rather than on the Crown to prove a valid waiver.

The appeal was allowed in part; the refusal conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered, but the impaired driving conviction was upheld using the curative proviso.

The appellant appealed convictions for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, evading police, and failing to stop after an accident.

The sole issue at trial was identity.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to apply the proper burden of proof to circumstantial identification evidence.

The court held that the trial judge properly approached the frailties of eyewitness identification, rejected unreliable identification procedures, and carefully assessed the circumstantial evidence.

The trial judge reasonably concluded that the only rational inference from the evidence was that the appellant was the driver, and the convictions were upheld.