The accused was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while having more than the legal limit of alcohol in his blood.
The central issue was whether police breached the accused's Charter right to counsel of choice by failing to provide him with access to his preferred lawyer.
The court found that police made reasonable and extensive efforts to locate and contact the accused's counsel of choice, including attempting multiple phone numbers, connecting him with an associate lawyer, and facilitating calls to duty counsel.
The court rejected the argument that police failed in their informational and implementation duties and found no Charter breach.
The accused was convicted.
