The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol in excess of the legal limit.
The defence brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, and sought exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).
The central issue was whether the police provided the accused with a reasonable opportunity to consult with his counsel of choice.
The court found that the officer told the accused the breath samples would be taken regardless of whether his chosen lawyer called back, and that the accused had no choice but to speak to duty counsel.
The court found this constituted a serious breach of section 10(b) of the Charter and excluded the blood-alcohol readings, resulting in an acquittal.