The appellant appealed a summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle while his blood‑alcohol level exceeded the legal limit.
He argued that the trial judge erred in rejecting a Charter s. 10(b) claim, refusing disclosure of technical "COBRA" data relating to the approved instrument used to measure breath samples, and finding that missing maintenance records did not rebut the statutory presumption of accuracy under the Criminal Code.
The Superior Court held that the trial judge’s credibility findings, evidentiary rulings, and interpretation of the statutory presumption were supported by the evidence and consistent with applicable law.
The absence of maintenance records did not establish malfunction or improper operation of the approved instrument.
No reversible error was demonstrated.
