This decision addresses the application of section 10(b) of the Charter regarding the right to counsel in the context of an impaired driving charge.
The court considered whether the accused was properly informed of his right to contact any lawyer of his choice, and whether he was afforded a reasonable opportunity to speak to counsel at the roadside.
The judge found a violation of section 10(b) due to failure to properly inform the accused about the option to speak to counsel privately at the roadside.
However, the evidence from breathalyzer tests was admitted under section 24(2) of the Charter, as the breach was not serious enough to exclude the evidence.
The court also found the accused guilty of impaired driving based on the totality of the evidence, including the circumstances of the accident and observed signs of impairment.
