The accused was charged with operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.
At the police station, the accused requested to speak with a specific lawyer who was a relative and a tax lawyer.
The breath technician refused to call the requested lawyer, deciding she could not assist with a criminal matter, and instead called duty counsel.
The court found this arbitrary refusal violated the accused's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel of choice.
Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the police conduct was a serious infringement that outweighed the reliability of the breath samples.
The breath test results were excluded under s. 24(2), resulting in the dismissal of the charge.
