Sarah Desabrais

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on charges of impaired operation of a motor vehicle and driving over 80.

The appeal judge found that the trial judge erred by applying the wrong test for reasonable suspicion to demand a roadside screening test, misapprehending the evidence regarding the respondent's right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter, and failing to conduct a proper s. 24(2) analysis.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction from June 10, 2014, arguing he did not receive effective assistance of counsel at trial and that he would have testified in his defence had his counsel been effective.

The appellant sought to introduce new evidence consisting of his testimony and that of his spouse to support his claim of ineffective assistance.

The Court of Appeal rejected the new evidence due to lack of credibility and implausibility, finding that cross-examination revealed falsehoods in the affidavits regarding contact between the appellant and his counsel during trial preparation.

The court also found the appellant's account of events on the night of the alleged abduction lacked logic and was inconsistent.

The appeal was dismissed.