The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80, arguing the trial judge provided insufficient reasons on a s. 10(b) Charter application regarding his right to counsel.
The appellant claimed the trial judge failed to explain why he preferred the police officers' evidence over his own.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not make a negative credibility finding, but rather relied on the uncontroverted evidence that the arresting officer read the right to counsel from a card while the appellant was in the police cruiser.
The reasons were deemed sufficient for appellate review.
