



COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: R. v. Logue, 2016 ONCA 659

DATE: 20160902

DOCKET: C60725

Laskin, Sharpe and Miller JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Christopher Logue

Appellant

Solomon Friedman, for the appellant

Michael Fawcett, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: August 30, 2016

On appeal from the conviction entered on April 15, 2015
    by
Michel Z. Charbonneau
of the Superior Court of
    Justice, sitting without a jury.

ENDORSEMENT

[1]

The appellant appeals his conviction for impaired driving causing bodily
    harm. He submits that the trial judges finding was unreasonable. As part of
    his overall submission he makes two specific arguments. First, the trial judge
    misapprehended the evidence surrounding the appellants refusal to provide a breath
    sample because he did not take into account that the appellant was distraught
    over his girlfriends injuries. Second, the trial judge impermissibly relied on
    the appellants lie to the firefighter that he had not been drinking.

[2]

We do not agree with the appellants submission. Four considerations
    taken together reasonably supported the trial judges finding that the
    appellants ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol: first
    his evidence of alcohol consumption; second the accident was unexplained; third
    the appellants obstructive behaviour in the ambulance; and fourth the
    statutory inference available from the appellants refusal to give a breath
    sample. In our view, there was evidence that supported the trial judges
    findings underlying these four considerations.

[3]

On the appellants two specific arguments we conclude as follows. First,
    at para. 108 of his reasons, the trial judge took account of the appellants
    emotional state when he refused to give a breath sample. Still, the trial judge
    found that the appellant was conscious and coherent when he said no. That
    finding was available to the trial judge on Officer Bruneaus evidence. Second,
    we agree with the Crown that the appellants no answer to the question
    whether he was drinking was admissible. The appellant was not detained at the
    time and he answered without feeling compelled to do so.

[4]

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

John
    Laskin J.A.

Robert
    J. Sharpe J.A.

B.W.
    Miller J.A.


