Mr. Stewart was convicted of dangerous driving, impaired driving, and driving while his blood alcohol content exceeded the legal limit, causing the death of two people and causing bodily harm to a third person. The identity of the driver was the sole issue at trial. Mr. Stewart did not deny that he was impaired or that he initially drove the Mercedes. However he testified that he was not the driver at the time of the single vehicle rollover because he had switched seats with a passenger. The trial judge rejected that evidence and concluded he was the driver, on the basis of circumstantial evidence. A new trial was ordered because the Court of Appeal held that there were fundamental flaws in the reasoning; that is, that the trial judge made findings of fact which were incompatible with evidence that she neither contradicted nor rejected. R. v. Stewart, 2020 SKCA 116