The appellant appealed a summary conviction for impaired driving following a trial where he had been acquitted of failing to provide a breath sample but convicted of impaired operation.
The appellant argued the trial judge made unreasonable and inconsistent findings, including misapprehending evidence regarding his dexterity, drawing inferences from unsuccessful breath attempts, and misstating that he had testified he was “high.” The appeal court held that the trial judge’s factual findings were entitled to deference absent palpable and overriding error.
The court found that any misstatement in the reasons was not material and did not affect the reasoning process leading to the conviction.
The conviction for impaired driving was supported by strong evidence and the appeal was dismissed.
