The appellant, charged with driving with excess alcohol, appealed her conviction.
The appeal court found the trial judge's reasons inadequate for appellate review, specifically noting failures to address the officer's credibility and reliability, a defence witness's evidence, the application of the W.(D.) principles beyond the first prong, and the admissibility of the appellant's statement to the Intoxilyzer operator under *Edgar* and *Laird*.
The trial judge misapplied the burden of proof by focusing solely on the appellant's credibility.
The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered.
