The accused was found unconscious in a running vehicle on a snowbank, exhibiting signs of severe intoxication.
Charged with impaired operation and operating over 80 mg%, the defence argued a Charter s. 10(b) breach, claiming the accused's waiver of the right to counsel was not informed or unequivocal due to his condition, and challenged the impairment evidence.
The court found the accused's testimony lacked credibility and reliability.
It held that the police fulfilled their duty to inform the accused of his right to counsel, and his repeated declinations were unambiguous, not triggering a further duty to inquire despite his intoxication.
The court concluded that the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, finding the accused's physical and mental faculties were completely impaired by alcohol.
The Charter application was dismissed, and findings of guilt were entered for both counts, with the over 80 mg% count stayed under the rule against multiple convictions.