|The appellant alleges the learned trial judge committed the following errors:|
 On June 27, 2008, Judge Frame convicted the appellant, Cynthia Darlene Anker, had on or about November 4, 2006, operated a motor vehicle while her ability to do so was impaired by alcohol, contrary to s. 253(a) (as the section was then numbered) of the Criminal Code (the “Code”).
 At the trial, the appellant conceded the identity and the essential elements of the offence had been proven.
 The only issue before the learned trial judge was whether or not the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt the offence took place on or about November 4, 2006.
 The appellant alleges the learned trial judge committed the following errors:
STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW
 An appellate court, reviewing a trial court’s decision as to reasonableness, must determine on the whole of the evidence whether the verdict is one that a properly instructed jury, acting judicially, could reasonably have rendered (R. v. Burke,  1 S.C.R. 474; R. v. W.(R.),  2 S.C.R. 122 (S.C.C.)).
 The appellate court cannot substitute its own view for the trier of fact, however, in order to apply the test of reasonableness, the court must re-examine and, to some extent, re-weigh and consider the effect of the evidence. (R. v. Yebes,  2 S.C.R. 168; R. v. W.(R.), 2 S.C.R 122 (S.C.C.)).
 Appellate review, as to the credibility of witnesses at a trial, is addressed by Madam Justice McLachlin stated:
 It is thus clear that a court of appeal, in determining whether the trier of fact could reasonably have reached the conclusion that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, must re-examine, and to some extent at least, reweigh and consider the effect of the evidence. The only question remaining is whether this rule applies to verdicts based on findings of credibility. In my opinion, it does. The test remains the same: could a jury or judge properly instructed and acting reasonably have convicted? That said, in applying the test the court of appeal should show great deference to findings of credibility made at trial. This Court has repeatedly affirmed the importance of taking into account the special position of the trier of fact on matters of credibility: White v. The King,  S.C.R. 268, at p. 272; R. v. M. (S.H.),  2 S.C.R. 446, at pp. 465-66. The trial judge has the advantage, denied to the appellate court, of seeing and hearing the evidence of witnesses. However, as a matter of law it remains open to an appellate court to overturn a verdict based on findings of credibility where, after considering all the evidence and having due regard to the advantages [page132] afforded to the trial judge, it concludes that the verdict is unreasonable.
 On the same topic, Mr. Justice Sopinka in Burke concluded:
[6 ] I acknowledge that this is a power which an appellate court will exercise sparingly. This is not to say that an appellate court should shrink from exercising the power when, after carrying out its statutory duty, it concludes that the conviction rests on shaky ground and that it would be unsafe to maintain it. In conferring this power on appellate courts to be applied only in appeals by the accused, it was intended as an additional and salutary safeguard against the conviction of the innocent.
 The evidence relied upon by the Crown comes from three witnesses: Jessie Orenchuk, Sarah Jubinville and John Klassen. Ms. Orenchuk and Ms. Jubinville were employees of the Copper Pub and Restaurant, owned by Mr. Klassen. The appellant, Cynthia Anker, an employee of the Copper Pub and Restaurant gave evidence.
 Ms. Orenchuk testified that she was working at the Copper Pub as a bartender on November 4, 2006 in Logan Lake, British Columbia. She started her shift between 5:00 p.m. or 5:30 p.m. She recalls this date as being the night she met her fiancé.
 When Ms. Orenchuk started her shift, Ms. Anker, was in the “smoke room” of the bar drinking wine. Ms. Orenchuk had known Ms. Anker “for years”.
 On the evening in question, Ms. Anker became intoxicated to such an extent that Ms. Orenchuk stopped serving her alcohol. Ms. Orenchuk called Ms. Jubinville who was working in the kitchen of the restaurant upstairs, and told her that Ms. Anker was intoxicated.
 Ms. Jubinville testified that Ms. Orenchuk telephoned her while she was working upstairs. Ms. Jubinville identified the date as November of 2006. Ms. Jubinville had come in to the restaurant to cook, starting at 1:30 p.m., relieving Ms. Anker.
 Upon Ms. Jubinville receiving the telephone call from Ms. Orenchuk, she went down to the pub. She concluded that Ms. Anker was intoxicated. Ms. Jubinville took Ms. Anker’s car keys away from her and returned to her duties upstairs. Ms. Anker followed her. Ms. Jubinville and Ms. Anker had a conversation. Ms. Anker promised Ms. Jubinville that she would not drive her car. Based on this, Ms. Jubinville returned Ms. Anker’s car keys. Ms. Anker then returned to the pub.
 At about 9:30 p.m. that evening, Ms. Orenchuk telephoned Ms. Jubinville asking her to come down and help her in the pub as it was very busy. Ms. Orenchuk did so.
 Ms. Jubinville served Ms. Anker three drinks of wine in the smoking room. Ms. Anker was in the smoking room with some other women.
 After Ms. Jubinville came down to serve drinks, Ms. Anker took the remote control for the music in the pub and cranked up the sound. Both Ms. Orenchuk and Ms. Jubinville had to take it back from her. Ms. Anker was loud, noisy and intoxicated.
 Ms. Jubinville served Ms. Anker liquor to keep her around so she could drive her home as she and Ms. Jubinville had agreed earlier.
 Ms. Jubinville, between 11:00 to 11:30 p.m., drove the other ladies who were with Ms. Anker to another bar. When Ms. Jubinville returned to the pub to drive Ms. Anker, Ms. Anker was no longer there.
 Mr. Klassen, the owner of the pub, had employed Ms. Anker since May of 2005. She was the head cook and kitchen manager. Mr. Klassen received a call from Ms. Orenchuk that Ms. Anker was being a problem in the pub. Mr. Klassen went downstairs and observed that Ms. Anker was intoxicated. He returned upstairs and spoke to his wife and Ms. Jubinville. Ms. Jubinville said that she would offer Ms. Anker a ride home. Mr. Klassen concluded that this resolved the matter.
 Ms. JOrenchuk observed Ms. Anker leave the pub to go to the parking lot. She reminded Ms. Anker of her ride with Ms. Jubinville. Ms. Anker made no comment and proceeded to the parking lot. Mr. Klassen observed Ms. Anker in the parking lot getting into her car.
 Mr. Klassen could not state the date when he received the telephone call from Ms. Orenchuk, when he went downstairs to the pub and observed Ms. Anker intoxicated and observed her getting into her car.
 Ms. Anker testified to the employees’ schedule being posted in the kitchen in a certain form which was identified by Mr. Klassen, who did not participate in the scheduling. Ms. Anker identified her handwriting on the scheduling form and concluded that on November 4, 2006, that she worked a split shift from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., and would not be drinking in the pub if she were working.
 Ms. Orenchuk testified in her evidence to the following:
Q All right. And, Ms. Orenchuk, I want to direct your attention to November of 2006. What was your occupation then?
A I was bartending at the Copper Pub.
Q All right. And the Copper Pub is located where?
A In Logan Lake, British Columbia.
Q All right. Now, Ms. Orenchuk, how long did you work as a bartender at the Copper Pub in Logan Lake, British Columbia?
A I was only there for about two and a half months.
Q And when did you –
THE COURT: Sorry, how long?
A Two and a half months.
Q And when did you start working there?
A September of 2006.
Q And when did you finish working at the Copper Pub in Logan Lake, British Columbia?
A The middle of November.
Q And of what year?
A Of 2006.
Q How do you know Cynthia Anker?
A She was a cook in the restaurant just above the bar.
Q Okay. And she was a cook in the restaurant during what period of time, Ms. Orenchuk?
A At that restaurant?
A The whole time I was there, and before.
Q Okay. And how long have you known Cynthia Anker?
A I’ve known her for years.
Q Now, Ms. Orenchuk, to direct your attention to the evening in question at the Copper Pub in Logan Lake, British Columbia, did you work that day?
Q Okay. And what day was that?
A November 4th, 2006.
Q And how is it that you recall the day was November 4th, 2006?
A It’s the night I met my fiancé.
Q All right. And on November 4th, 2006, what time did you start work?
A I can’t remember if it was five or 5:30.
Q And that’s in the afternoon?
Q Now, Ms. Orenchuk, when you started your shift that day, November 4th, 2006, was the pub already open or did you open it up?
A It was already open.
Q All right. And when you commenced your shift, did you see – what can you tell us about your observations of where Ms. Anker was?
A She was in the smoke room with a lady to two.
Q Okay, in the smoke room. When you say the smoke room, Ms. Orenchuk, to what are you referring?
A Just a little area that’s cut off for smokers. It has like a little entrance.
Q Okay. A little area contained in where?
A The bar.
Q The bar?
Q That’s the Copper Pub?
Q And this smoke room that you talk about, Ms. Orenchuk, what can you tell us about the ability to view the smoke room from the bar area?
A It has glass – it has, like, wood to about here, and then glass windows all the way to the roof.
Q Okay. So when you started your shift, you say that you observed Ms. Anker in the smoke room?
Q What was she doing?
A She was talking to somebody.
Q And you know what? I’m having trouble hearing you, so I’m just going to ask you to keep your voice up, okay?
A Sorry, yeah. She was talking to somebody in there, a lady.
Q And what observations, if any, did you make about what she was drinking?
A She was drinking red wine.
Q And drinking – how do you know it was red wine she was drinking?
A Well, she had ordered a drink of red wine from me.
Q Okay. She ordered it from you?
Q Where at?
A At the bar.
Q And when she ordered the red wine from you, what did you do?
A I gave it to her.
Q Okay. And please tell the court what you gave specifically to Ms. Anker.
A I gave her a glass of red wine.
Q And what observations, if any, did you make of Ms. Anker when you served her this glass of red wine?
A She started getting really loud and talking to – like, disturbing the customers when they were eating, and she was kind of slurring her words a little bit.
Q Okay. And how long after you served this wine to Ms. Anker did you make the observations you’ve just told us about?
A Probably about 10 or 15 minutes after.
Q Okay. When you say she was disturbing customers, what did you observe specifically?
A She was just – when they were eating, she was going over there and talking to them and talking about their food.
Q Ms. Orenchuk, you’ve told us that you observed Ms. Anker slurring words. Are you able to say what words you hear her slur?
Q All right. And your observations of Ms. Anker when you – just after you served her the glass of wine, just describe those, please.
A Like I said, she was going over to the customers eating. She was talking really loud. She was slurring her words.
Q All right. Now, Ms. Orenchuk, after you made these observations of Ms. Anker, did you serve – what, if anything, did you serve Ms. Anker after that?
A After that I told her that I cut her off.
Q Okay. What did you say to her?
A I said, “Cindy, you’re cut off. I’m not serving you anymore.”
Q All right. And approximately what time was it that you told Ms. Anker that you’d cut her off, you weren’t serving her anymore?
A Probably would’ve been about six o’clock.
Q I’m sorry?
A Six o’clock.
Q Okay. And what did Ms. Anker do after you told her that you were cutting her off?
A She just went back into the smoke room and sat down with some people.
Q Okay. And that’s the smoke room contained inside the pub, is that correct?
Q Okay. So you’ve told us that you served, you know, Ms. Anker a glass of wine and –
Q -- you made some observations. What happens next?
A I called up to my friend Sarah that was in the kitchen.
A I had told her that Cindy was downstairs with me drinking. Not with me drinking, but downstairs.
Q Why did you call your friend Sarah?
A I don’t know. I just phoned her ‘cause –
Q Okay. What was your purpose in phoning Sarah?
A Just – kinda to [inaudible/voice drops] Cindy.
Q Okay. And what’s [Sarah’s] last name?
Q And what was Sarah doing at the Copper Pub that day?
A She was, I believe, cooking upstairs.
Q Okay. Is that in the restaurant?
Q What did you tell Sarah when you phoned her?
A I told her that Cindy was down at the bar drinking and I’d cut her off and that she was drunk.
Q And as a result of that phone call that you made to Sarah Jubinville upstairs, what happened?
A She came down and –
Q Who’s she?
A Sarah –
A -- came down the stairs and talked to Cindy and took Cindy’s keys away.
Q All right. Are you able to say what time that was –
A I have no idea.
Q -- Ms. Orenchuk? Okay. Now, after Sarah came down and took Cindy’s keys, what happened then?
A Sarah then went back upstairs with the keys and Cindy followed her.
Q Did you see Cindy after that?
A Yeah, after Cindy came back down, but Sarah stayed upstairs.
Q All right. You stated that it started to become busier in the bar?
Q And as a result of that, did you get some assistance to help work the bar?
A Yeah, I phoned Sarah at about 9 o’clock when her shift ended and she said she had to do some clean-up, but she’d be down at 9:30.
Q And did she come down at 9:30?
Q And that’s the same Sarah that you called earlier, Sarah Jubinville?
A Jubinville, yes.
Q And when Sarah came down to help you out at 9:30, how did you divide up the labour then?
A She – I stayed behind the bar and she served. Yeah.
Q Okay. And at 9:30 when Sarah came down to assist you in the bar, were – did you observe Cynthia Anker then?
Q Where was she?
A All over.
Q When you say “all over” –
A She was in the smoke room and out.
Q Okay. In the bar?
A In the bar, yeah.
Q And what observations did you make of Cynthia Anker in the bar after Sarah had come down at about 9:30?
A She had come up to the bar – Cindy had come up to the bar and grabbed the remote for the music and turned it right up, so we had taken that back from her. And then she went –
Q You ended up taking that from her?
A The remote from her.
Q Describe that.
A The remote control for the TV. We just kind of told her to give it over and she gave it to us.
Q Who’s we?
A Me and Sarah.
Q When you say she couldn’t walk very well, could you please describe what you observed?
A She was just stumbling when she walked.
Q And, Ms. Orenchuk, can you describe the demeanour of Ms. Cynthia Anker when you saw her in the bar after Sarah had come down?
A She was all happy and talkative and yelling, just walking around, stumbling, talking to people.
Q All right. So after you observe Ms. Anker in the bar for this period of time you’ve told us about, what happened then?
A Her and a group of friends that she was sitting with wanted to go home, so then Sarah offered to drive – to drive them.
Q All right. And did Ms. Anker accept Sarah’s offer of a ride home –
A Well, Sarah didn’t have enough room in her car so she took a couple of ladies first –
Q All right.
A -- the ladies that Cindy was sitting with first, and Sarah said that she would come back for Cindy.
Q All right. And after Sarah said she was taking these other ladies first, what happened?
A Sarah left and Cindy was sitting there –
A Sitting in the smoke room.
 In cross-examination of Ms. Orenchuk, she testified as follows:
Q Now, Cindy and you worked at the Copper – she worked there the entire two and a half months that you were working there, correct?
Q And you would’ve seen Cindy and other staff members drinking from time to time at the Copper?
Q That wasn’t something that was uncommon?
Q Now, Sarah worked with you for those entire two and a half months as well, right?
Q How many – how many nights or how many shifts would you and Sarah have done together in those two and a half months?
A That was the first – first one and only one.
Q Now, you’ve told us something about meeting your fiancé. When did that happen?
A That happened after all this happened. There was a bachelor party that come in.
Q So that would’ve been on the – after midnight, before midnight?
A Probably just before midnight.
Q And then you met – you met your fiancé after the party had been at the Copper for a while?
A Mm – hmm.
Q How many people came into the Copper with that party?
A Oh goodness. I’d have to say about 20, if not more.
Q Did you make any notes that evening about what you’ve told us about? Did you write anything down anywhere or –
Q Now, your memory for what happened in November of 2006 in that two and a half months that you were working at the Copper –
A Mm – hmm.
Q -- it’s – you’d agree with me that it’s faded over time, right?
A Oh, yes.
Q There’s a lot of things that you don’t remember?
Q And that sometimes when your memory starts to fade, the sequence of events can start to get mixed up in your mind?
Q And your memory can have two different events that might’ve happened on different days that happened – in your memory now that happened on the same day. Can that happen?
Q Now, it was clear to you that – on the day that you’re talking about when Cindy was in the car, it was clear to you that she wasn’t working at the time that she was down in the bar?
Q You wouldn’t have expected her to draw a pay cheque for what she was doing in the bar that day?
Q And her normal place of work would be upstairs in the kitchen anyway, right?
Q Not down in the smoke room and in the bar?
Q Ms. Orenchuk, I’m going to suggest to you that what you’ve told us about happened, but that it may not have happened on November 4th, it happened one of the other days that you were working at the Copper. Would you agree that that’s possible?
Q Would you agree that it might’ve happened a day or two earlier or a day or two behind the 4th, after the 4th?
 Ms. Jubinville testified as follows:
Q All right. Ms. Jubinville, do you know Cynthia Anker?
A I do.
Q All right. And I want to direct your attention to November of 2006. What was your occupation then?
A A cook.
Q And where were you cooking?
A Copper Valley Motor Inn in Logan Lake, B.C.
Q All right. And how long did you work at the Copper Valley Motor Inn as a cook?
A Around a year. I was a waitress before that.
Q All right. And, Ms. Jubinville, when you worked at the Copper Valley Motor Inn in Logan Lake, did you ever work with Cynthia Anker?
A The whole time.
Q All right. Now, when you were working as a cook at the Copper Valley Motor Inn, what was the occupation that Ms. Anker was working as?
A She was the kitchen manager.
Q All right. Now, Ms. Jubinville, did you observe an incident with Ms. Anker that brings you to court here today?
Q And are you able to say when that incident you observed was?
A A long time ago. In 2006, I believe, November.
Q All right. And are you able to be anymore specific about that date? Are you able to tell us –
Q -- who was working in the Copper Pub that day?
A Jessie Orenchuk was on shift at 5 o’clock, I was upstairs at 1:30, and Cindy working in the kitchen till around 1:30 when I relieved her in the kitchen.
Q Okay. So Jessie Orenchuk was working there?
A Downstairs in the bar.
Q All right. An you were cooking?
Q What was your shift that day?
A One thirty till 9:30.
Q Okay. One thirty in the afternoon?
Q And what was the shift for Cynthia Anker that day?
A Five thirty till 1:30.
Q Five thirty a.m.?
Q So when you came to work that day, what time did you arrive for work?
A One thirty.
Q And when you got to work at 1:30, who did you relieve as cook?
Q Now, the restaurant is in the – on the upper floor of this Copper Valley Motor Inn, correct?
Q So when you reported for work at 1:30, where did you go first?
A Into the kitchen.
Q At the point that you were working at the Copper Valley Motor Inn and you were working with Ms. Anker, had you known her for some time?
A Yes, I worked with her before.
Q Okay. Where was that?
A Lac Le Jeune Resort.
Q Now, Ms. Jubinville, over the time that you knew and worked with Ms. Anker, you had occasion to observe Ms. Anker when she is sober?
Q And have you had occasion to observe Ms. Anker when she has been intoxicated by liquor?
Q Could you describe that, please?
A Slurring of words, stumbling, she gets a crooked smile.
Q She gets a crooked smile when?
A When she’s intoxicated.
Q Now, what about demeanour, how she acts?
A She’s very forceful, strong. She comes on very strong to you.
A When she’s intoxicated, and normally she’s very laid back.
Q Now, after you learned that Ms. Anker’s car was still in the parking lot at about 4:30 – that’s 4:30 in the afternoon?
A Yes, it is.
Q What happened then?
A Around 5:30 Jessie phoned me and said she was down there. She had just gotten on shift and said she was intoxicated, and I came downstairs and retrieved her keys which later she took back from me promising not to drive her vehicle.
Q Okay. So just to break that down a bit, at 5:30 you get a call –
A From Jessie.
Q -- from Jessie. That’s Jessie Orenchuk?
A Yes, it is.
Q And where was Jessie at the time she made the call?
A In the bar.
Q Okay. And you were –
A Upstairs cooking.
Q As a result of this call from Jessie, what did you do specifically?
A I went downstairs and took Cindy’s keys.
Q And when you say you took Cindy’s keys, how did you get Cindy’s keys?
A They were in her purse sitting on the counter.
Q All right. So you literally just took them out of her purse?
Q What observations did you make a Cindy when you went downstairs about 5:30 and took her keys?
A That she was already intoxicated. Very much so.
Q Well, what did you observe, Ms. Jubinville, that –
A Stumbling, S-shaped walking, slurring of words.
Q S-shaped walking? Where did you see her walking?
A In the bar towards the bathroom.
Q Over how long a period of time did you observe her when you went down to get her keys?
A Not long. Maybe two minutes.
Q And besides S-shaped waling and stumbling, what other observations, if any, did you make of Ms. Anker at that time?
A None at that time.
Q So you took her keys. What did you do with them?
A Brought them upstairs into the kitchen with me.
Q Okay. And did you keep them?
A Yeah, till probably around eight when she came upstairs and said she wouldn’t drive, so I gave them back to her.
Q All right. And when you saw her upstairs in the kitchen when she asked for her keys back, what observations did you make of her then?
A She was very pushy to get them back. She was angry that I took them and I told her it was for her well-being, that she shouldn’t be driving, and she was slurring very much.
Q When you say slurring very much, are you able to say what words she was slurring, or can you describe the slurring?
A No. Slurring of words.
Q And so you gave the keys back, is that correct?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what happened after that?
A Nine thirty rolled around and – well, around nine Jessie phoned me and I think it was her second or third shift in the pub and she was very busy, and I went down to help her serve drinks.
Q Okay. And what time did you go back down to the pub –
A Nine thirty.
Q -- to serve – to help out –
A Around 9:30.
Q Okay. And when you got down to the pub at 9:30, what did you see when you got down there?
A It was very busy. There was a lot of people. There was some ladies sitting with Cindy in the smoking room drinking as well.
Q Okay. Did you serve anything to Cindy Anker?
A I did.
Q Okay. And what did you serve to Cindy Anker?
A Three drinks. Red wine.
Q And how was the red wine being served?
A In a glass. We weren’t filling it up what we would normally fill it up. We were just trying to keep her around for me to drive her home, ‘cause as soon as you cut her off she would leave and we didn’t want that.
Q All right. How long did you stay helping out Jessie in the pub after you went down there at about 9:30?
A Around 11 o’clock, 11:30 I stopped helping her and drove some ladies that were sitting with Cindy to another bar.
Q So between 9:30 when you started helping Jessie and 11 or 11:30 when you left to drive these other ladies, did you make observations of Cynthia Anker during that period of time?
A Yes, I did.
Q What observations did you make?
A She was stealing the remote control for the music and cranking it loud and we had to fight with her to get it back, more than one occasion that happened, and she was making weird animal noises in the smoking room.
Q Now, you’ve told us that you served three glasses of wine to Cynthia Anker. Why were you serving her liquor?
A To keep her there to drive home.
Q Well, what arrangements, if any, had been made about driving her home?
A When I gave her her keys back, that was our agreement.
Q What was your agreement?
A That I would drive her home when I was done in the bar.
 Mr. Klassen testified as follows:
A I own a business there.
Q Okay. And what is the business?
A It’s a motel, restaurant and pub.
Q All right. And the name of it is?
A Is the Copper Valley Motor Inn.
Q And you said there’s a pub as part of that business?
A Yeah, it’s all in one complex. The pub is called Copper’s Pub and the restaurant is Copper Valley Restaurant.
Q And how long have your know Cynthia Anker?
A She first came in probably May or June of ’05 and we opened – she helped us open the restaurant. She – we opened that on July 4th of ’05.
Q All right. And when you say she came in –
A Well. She – yeah, she –
Q -- you hired her?
A Yeah, yeah, she – she actually approached us about – I believe. I know my wife dealt with more of that part, but she approached us about opening the restaurant, I believe.
Q All right. And in what capacity did you know Ms. Anker from June of ’05?
A She worked as our head cook and kitchen manager.
Q And, Mr. Klassen, as it respects Cynthia Anker, did you make observations on a particular day in November, 2006, that bring you to court here today?
Q Mr. Klassen, so the observations that you made of a specific incident that bring you to court here today, please tell the court what was the first observation you made.
A I was upstairs and –
Q Okay, when you say upstairs –
A In the restaurant area.
Q -- you have to say upstairs –
A In the restaurant area.
Q Okay. It works better if only one of us talk at once, okay? So where were you that day?
A I was around the business all day probably, but specifically when I became aware of it I was in the restaurant area, and the bartender downstairs informed – called up and informed me that Cindy was being a problem downstairs in the pub. So I went down and I observed and she was being a problem and I didn’t want – I didn’t think it would be productive immediately to confront her, so I went back upstairs and some of us up there discussed it, Kim and – Kim and Sarah Jubinville were involved, my wife Kim, and Sarah offered to – at that point it was getting – it was towards – getting in toward evening and Sarah would be off work in awhile and Sarah suggested she could offer her a ride home, and we felt that that would be a good solution because they had a better rapport than – in their relationship than we did and I felt it would go better, so I left it at that.
Q Okay. I’m just going to stop you there for a second, Mr. Klassen. When you say him or her, you have to say the name of the person –
Q So you’ve told the court that you learned of something from somebody downstairs, so –
A The bartender –
Q I’ll just stop you there. So please describe who you learned this information from and when.
A Jessie Orenchuk called from downstairs in the pub.
Q Okay. What time?
A I don’t recall exactly the time. I know it was –
Q Called who?
A Spoke to me.
Q All right.
A Okay. It would’ve been somewhere – it would’ve been in the evening because I know it was – it was getting towards to kind of – Sarah was off at nine. Close enough that we – close enough that we felt to leave – you know, not to do anything until then. And I went down and observed Cindy and I didn’t –
Q Where did you observe Cindy?
A She was in the pub and she was standing at a table interacting with some other customers and she was – obviously had been drinking and appeared impaired to me.
Q What did you observe –
A Cindy –
Q -- that leads you to say she was impaired?
A Cindy’s demeanour changes quite a bit when she’s drinking. She gets in your face more and more emotional and she gets – she gets quite arrogant, tends to wag her finger at people and –
Q At this point how long had you known Cindy?
A It had been about a year and a half.
Q All right. And during that year and a half that you knew Cindy Anker had you observed her in situations where she was sober?
Q And had you observed her in situations where she was impaired by alcohol?
Q Now, having made these observations of Cynthia Anker, what did you do?
A I went – I went back upstairs and I spoke with my wife Kim, and at least with Sarah Jubinville, I don’t know if anybody else was involved, because we felt we had to do something, we couldn’t let her go that way, and Sarah offered to offer her a ride home, to give her a ride home, and we felt that that would be better than us dealing with it.
Q All right. And when Sarah Jubinville declared her intention to offer Cynthia a ride home, what happened then?
A Well, we just – we left it until – Sarah was going to be off at nine anyway, so we – we just left it until then and Sarah went – as soon as she was done, she went downstairs to deal with it, and she did call me – Sarah called me and told me that she – Cindy had accepted a ride home, but she was going to go a little later.
Q What time was that?
A That would’ve been shortly after nine when Sarah went down.
Q All right. And after you learned from Sarah that Cynthia had accepted a ride home, what occurred then?
A Well, I – I didn’t – I just thought that situation was dealt with, so I just carried on with things I was doing in the restaurant area and forgot about it, basically. And then later, and I don’t know how long later it was, I observed Cindy getting into her car outside.
Q And are you able to say, sir, approximately what time you observed Cindy getting into her car?
A Approximately 10 o’clock. Nine thirty or 10, maybe a little later. I didn’t check at the time. You know, I’m sorry, I – yeah, that – it would’ve been about – around 10, give or take. I didn’t record the time.
Q And did you observe Sarah? Did you see Sarah –
A No, Sarah wasn’t there at the time.
Q Did you know where Sarah was?
Q And I just want to ask you, Mr. Klassen, specific to when this – when this event occurred. On the evening that you observed these events, who was working in the kitchen?
A In the evening, Sarah Jubinville was working – cooking in the kitchen.
Q And who was in the kitchen in the morning?
A Cindy had been – Cindy had been in the kitchen in the morning.
Q And who was working in the pub downstairs, the Copper Pub?
A In the evening it was – I’m terrible with names. Jessie Orenchuk.
Q All right. And with respect to the observations you made on this specific evening you’re talking about, had you had – you’ve told us about discussions you had with Ms. Jubinville about offering a ride home for Ms. Anker.
A Mm-hmm. Yes.
 Mr. Klassen was cross-examined. He testified to the following:
Q Okay. So this isn’t a record that you’ve ever seen before completed, but you do recognize the form that it’s completed on. Is that fair to say?
A Well, certainly, yeah, that – yeah. I – no, I wouldn’t be familiar with this particular copy, but that is the form we use.
 Ms. Anker testified to the following:
Q Were you – have you previously been employed at the Copper Valley Motor Inn?
A Yes, I have.
Q Do you recall what dates – between what day and what day you were employed at the Copper –
A I do believe it was March of ’05 to December 4th, ’06.
Q And what were your duties at that establishment?
A Cook/kitchen manager.
Q What was the process at that establishment through which you and the other employees records the hours that you worked?
A Timesheets that we signed in and out on.
Q I beg your pardon?
A We’d sign in and out on timesheets.
Q So what does that mean with respect to what you would’ve been doing on the evening of the 4th of November?
A I would be in the kitchen working.
Q When you were on duty at the restaurant, would you have ever had occasion to go down to the smoke room or to the bar and to sit and drink with other customers of the bar?
Q Would you have put in for pay had you been doing something like that?
Q Now, Ms. Anker, on the left-hand side of the form there is a long parenthesis and the numbers 95.5 written beside them.
A That would be the hours that I did in that first half of the month.
Q And the first half of the month was the first pay period?
A Would be the hours that I put in for the second half of the pay period.
Q Ms. Anker, you’ve heard the evidence of the three witnesses who have testified before you, correct?
A Yes, I have.
Q Did anything like that what they’ve described happen on the 4th of November, 2006?
Q Did anything – do you recall anything like that happening at any other time?
A Possibly. That’s, like, two years ago.
 Ms. Anker was cross-examined and she testified as follows:
Q Isn’t it possible, Ms. Anker, that you may have been scheduled for a split shift, but you only worked the first part of it?
Q Well, you’ve written down the five for recommencing and nine for finishing the second part of the shift, but you can’t say today that you recall working that second part of the shift, can you?
A Only by my records can I say that I did.
Q And it’s possible, isn’t it, Ms. Anker, that although you wrote it, you didn’t actually work it?
A I was paid for it, so I imagine I worked it.
Q Well, because you were paid for it, that only indicates because it was written down, it doesn’t indicate that you actually worked it, does it, Ms. Anker?
A No, it doesn’t, but Mrs. Klassen would always check and initial after every shift every day.
Q Well, you didn’t see Ms. Klassen initial it, did you?
A No, but it would usually be initialled in the morning.
Q Well, you can’t tell us today that it was initialled the following morning, can you?
A I wouldn’t know.
Q Ms. Anker, when you worked at the Copper Valley restaurant and Copper Valley Motor Inn, you on occasion would drink after your shift, right?
Q At the pub?
A Yeah, I’d have a couple.
Q Well, I’m going to put it to you that on the 4th of November, after you finished at one o’clock or 1:30, you went downstairs to the pub section and drank to the point of intoxication. What do you say to that?
A I don’t recall that.
Q But it’s possible you did, right?
A I guess anything is possible, but I highly doubt it because I got paid for that day.
Q Well, Ms. Anker, what was your drinking pattern in around November of 2006?
A I’m not sure.
Q Well, I’m going to suggest to you that you were drinking quite heavily around November of 2006. What do you say to that?
A I’m not sure.
Q Ms. Anker, you heard Jessie Orenchuk testify this morning, correct?
A Yes, I did.
Q You heard Jessie Orenchuk testify about observations she made of you on that specific day, November 4th, 2006?
A Yes, I did.
Q And I put it to you, Ms. Anker, that on November 4th, 2006, you drank in the Copper Pub after your shift completed in the early afternoon and you were served liquor by Ms. Orenchuk, specifically wine.
A I don’t believe so.
Q You gave up your keys to Sarah Jubinville, didn’t you?
A Perhaps one time I did, yeah. The date I wouldn’t know.
Q Well, I put it to you the date was November 4th, 2006. That’s the date you gave up your keys to Sarah.
A I’m not sure on that one.
Q The date that Sarah took your keys from your purse and you went back upstairs and got them back from her promising you wouldn’t drive.
A I’m not positive on that one either.
Q You worked with Sarah for about a year and a half, right?
Q I put it to you, Ms. Anker, that it was on the 4th November, 2006, Sarah Jubinville offered you a ride home because you were intoxicated and you agreed that you would wait for her to give you a ride home.
A I have no recollection of that.
Q I put it to you, Ms. Anker, that it was on the 4th of November, 2006, that you were observed by your employer, Mr. Klassen, getting into your vehicle and driving home in an intoxicated state. Do you agree with me?
A I can’t agree if I’m not certain on it.
Q Well, it’s very likely, isn’t it, Ms. Anker, that that’s what occurred on that day?
A I don’t believe so.
Q Well, you don’t believe so. Is it fair to say that you don’t believe so because you’re in a haze as to – as to the – the amount of intoxication you had during that whole period of time?
A No, actually, I say I disagree with that because of my timesheet sitting in front of me.
Q But you agreed with me that that timesheet was not signed off by anybody immediately after those hours were worked, correct?
A I’m not – I’m not aware of that. I’m not sure.
Q And you agree with me that although this timesheet indicates hours paid, it does not necessarily mean actual hours worked?
A No, it’s actual hours worked.
Q What does “home work” mean on that sheet?
A I do a lot of work on my computer for them for their restaurant, like menus and stuff like that, costing inventory.
 The appellant argues that the trial judge erred in failing to assess whether time was an essential element of the offence. The trial judge was alive to this issue. She stated in her reasons for judgment the following:
 Mr. Hewson provided a case speaking to the critical element of dates in summary conviction offences. In R. v. Threlfall  BCJ No. 1194 at paragraph 17 the court said:
It is my view that the date is essential in summary conviction offences because the jurisdiction of the summary conviction court depends on it. In my view, while the exact date charged may be wrong that is not necessarily fatal to the charge so long as it is proven the offence occurred within the statutory requirement.
 He also provided the decision R. v. Jacobson  BCJ No. 647. In that case, the Information alleged impaired driving occurred in November 1973 but the breath certificate introduced into evidence was dated October 10, 1973. The court held that the error was fatal to the charge because the results of the test on October 10, 1973 “are patently incapable of supporting a conviction for an offence on month later”.
 Ms. Anker has no specific recollection of the night in question because it was so long ago. Her defence is based not upon her specific recollections but on her timesheet relating to her hours worked on November 4, 2006.
 When asked in direct examination if the events could have happened, Ms. Anker said they could not have happened on November 4, 2006 but they could have happened another time.
 The trial judge accepted Ms. Orenchuk’s evidence that the offence occurred on November 4, 2006. She accepted Ms. Jubinville’s evidence that the offence occurred in November of 2006. She accepted the evidence of Mr. Klassen that he did not remember the date of the offence. The trial judge commented favourably on the credibility of each of these witnesses, but not favourably of the accused. She comments on the evidence and the credibility of the Crown’s witnesses and Ms. Anker and states the following:
 Ms. Orenchuk is certain of the night because it is the night a bachelor party arrived later, and she met the man who is now her fiancé. Ms. Orenchuk conceded that memory fades with time and, with the fading of memory, sequences can be mixed up. However, she was adamant that the events described occurred on November 4, 2006.
 Ms. Anker was drinking wine. Ms. Orenchuk served her a glass. She cannot say how many ounces the glass held. Ms. Orenchuk said Ms. Anker was starting to get loud, disturbing customers, slurring words. Ms. Orenchuk first observed this ten to fifteen minutes after serving the wine.
 Ms. Orenchuk said Ms. Jubinville came down, spoke to Ms. Anker and took her keys away. Ms. Jubinville went upstairs with the keys and Ms. Anker followed. Ms. Anker returned about ten minutes later and returned to the smoking room.
 Around 9:00 p.m., Ms. Orenchuk called Ms. Jubinville for assistance with serving in the pub. Ms. Jubinville came down at the end of her shift at 9:30 p.m. Ms. Jubinville took over serving.
 Ms. Anker was served three more partial drinks. Her behaviour became somewhat obnoxious. She took the remote and cranked up the volume of the music. She was making hooting, hollering and animal noises in the smoking room.
 Ms. Orenchuk was frank and forthright in delivering her testimony. She conceded readily when she could not recall events. I found her evidence to be credible and reliable. I accept her evidence that she is certain the events occurred on November 4, 2006. First, she had to cope with a difficult colleague and this in itself would be memorable. Clearly most of the details remained in her mind. Additionally, she met her fiancé that night. I am satisfied that Ms. Orenchuk accurately recalls the date of the events.
 Ms. Jubinville’s evidence is much the same as Ms. Orenchuk’s. She relieved Ms. Anker in the kitchen around 1:30 p.m. She only recalls the date as being in November 2006. She cannot be more specific. She does relate the same events as those Ms. Orenchuk said occurred on November 4, 2006.
 Ms. Jubinville said Ms. Orenchuk called her around 5:30 p.m. because Ms. Anker was intoxicated. Ms. Jubinville went down to the pub and observed Ms. Anker was very much intoxicated. She observed Ms. Anker in the bar towards the washroom “s-shaped walking”, stumbling and slurring her words.
 Ms. Jubinville took Ms. Anker’s keys. She kept them until 8:00 p.m. and only returned them when Ms. Anker promised she would not drive. She said Ms. Anker was pushy about getting her keys back and was angry that Ms. Jubinville took them. She promised she would let Ms. Jubinville drive her home.
 Ms. Jubinville, for all her youth, is a very self possessed witness. As with Ms. Orenchuk, she delivered her evidence fairly and objectively.
 Mr. Klassen was quite forthright about what he did not remember and easily conceded where his memory failed him. In that regard, I found his evidence with respect to time and date less reliable than that of Ms. Jubinville and Ms. Orenchuk. However, his evidence with respect to what he observed in Ms. Anker’s conduct in the pub as well as her manner of driving after she left the pub were considerably clearer. I find his evidence on these two critical matters to be reliable.
 As I have said, Ms. Anker has no independent recollect of the events or what night they may have transpired on. All she can say is that the events described may have happened but they must have been on another night because the timesheet she prepared indicates she was working a split shift and would have been in the kitchen from 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. when she was purportedly in the bar.
 The copy of the timesheet in evidence certainly shows that Ms. Anker wrote in the split shift for the day in question. It appears that her initials are in the first box to the right of the shift. However, the box immediately to the right of her initials, where Kim Klassen’s initials would have appeared, is covered over in the exhibit copy with a tally tape. It is impossible to see whether Ms. Klassen signed next to the shift. Ms. Anker said that she only completes the shift time at the end of each shift and would not put the times on the sheet in advance. She cannot say whether Ms. Klassen initialled the shifts, or when she initialled them.
 Ms. Anker was honest about the fact that her defence relies not at all upon her own memory but upon the one timesheet she was able to produce in her defence. It was her uncontroverted evidence that, while working, she would not go down to the pub and smoke or drink with patrons. She acknowledged that she would usually have a couple of drinks after her shift. She does not recall drinking to intoxication and points out that she was paid for that day. She bases this upon the total number of hours indicated on her timesheet and the amount she was paid for the corresponding period.
 She became quite belligerent in cross examination when questioned about her drinking pattern. Her typical response to each question with respect to her drinking pattern and whether she was drinking heavily at the time was to respond something to the effect that she was not sure. Her answers sounded false and unresponsive.
 She agreed that there was perhaps one time that she gave her keys to Ms. Orenchuk but did not know the date. She was not sure if it was November 4, 2006.
 The appellant argues that in assessing the evidence of the witnesses that the learned trial judge was required to conduct an analysis based on the W.(R.) test. The learned trial judge does not have to adopt the W.(D.) test. In R. v. Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24, Charron J.A. stated that “there is nothing sacrosanct about the formula set out in W. (D.).” She goes on to state that the formula set out in W.(D.) and “the assessment of credibility will not always lend itself to the adoption of the three distinct steps suggested in W. (D.);”. Charron J.A. concludes that:
Put differently, the trial judge must consider whether the evidence as a whole establishes the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
 Ms. Anker had no independent recollection of November 4, 2006, and relied strictly on her timesheets; timesheets she did not know if her employer had even initialled and confirmed that she worked. Ms. Anker denied the events occurred on November 4. In cross-examination, she was not “sure, positive or certain” what happened on that date and had no recollection of the date when Ms. Jubinville took her keys from her. Her evidence and recollection was based solely on the timesheets.
 The trial judge found that Ms. Anker “quite belligerent” and her answers “sounded false and unresponsive”.
 The trial judge accepted the evidence of the three Crown’s witnesses, finding them credible.
 The trial judge found the offence to have taken place on November 4, 2006, based on the evidence Ms. Orenchuk and Ms. Jubinville, who said that the offence took place in November of 2006.
 By reviewing their evidence and that of Mr. Klassen, the trial judge was able to conclude that all three of the witnesses were recounting the events of the same date.
 The trial judge concluded that the evidence as a whole established the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
 I am satisfied that on the whole of the evidence before the trial judge that a properly instructed jury, acting judicially, could reasonably have rendered this verdict.
 I dismiss the appeal against this conviction.
“H.C. Hyslop J.”
Her Majesty the Queen
Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Hyslop
On Appeal from: a Provincial Court of British Columbia decision
Reasons for Judgment