The appellant was convicted of driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 milligrams after complying with a breathalyzer demand.
He was not informed of his right to counsel.
The Supreme Court of Canada, applying its concurrent decision in R. v. Therens, held that a breathalyzer demand constitutes detention under section 10 of the Charter.
Consequently, the appellant's right to counsel was violated.
The Court concluded that admitting the breathalyzer evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, excluded the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, and ordered a new trial.
