What is the difference between a conviction for impaired driving and a stay of conviction?

The respondent concedes that, given the trial judge’s reasons for finding that the charge of impaired driving had not been made out, the verdicts in this case are inconsistent. However, the respondent submits that the trial judge erred in acquitting the appellant of impaired driving and that the ratio in Pendleton, on which the trial judge relied, was not relevant on the facts of this case. The respondent takes the position that the appellant should have been found guilty on both counts in the information, with a conviction entered on one count and a stay entered on the other pursuant to the principle in Kienapple v. The Queen, 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729 (S.C.C.).