Mr. Briltz was convicted of 8 offences (3 evade, 3 drive while prohibited, 1 resist arrest and 1 refusal) and was sentenced to a 5 year global sentence. He appealed his convictions and one of his arguments was that the breath demand was not lawful. The appeal court dismissed his conviction appeal, focusing on how well the officer testified:
The question before the trial judge here was twofold: (a) whether the officer who had made the breath demand had held a subjective belief that Mr. Briltz’s ability to drive was at least slightly impaired by alcohol; and (b) whether the observations articulated by that officer in support of his belief were reasonable and sufficiently sustainable on an objective basis to underpin his demand for a breath sample. Given the overwhelming indicia of impairment spoken to by the officer, the trial judge correctly concluded the breath demand was lawful.
Mr. Briltz also appealed his 5 year sentence, arguing it was too long. The Crown also appealed the sentence, arguing it was too short. The Court allowed the Crown's appeal and increased his sentence to 8 years. R. v. Briltz, 2016 SKCA 2