The appellant appealed a conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample under s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code.
The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to address contradictions between police witnesses regarding the timing of breath demands.
The appellate court held that the trial judge reasonably accepted the evidence that a valid roadside screening demand was made and unequivocally refused at 1:51 a.m.
Any discrepancies concerning a later second demand were not material to the conviction.
The court found no misapprehension of evidence, illogical reasoning, or miscarriage of justice.
