The appellant appealed a summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding 80 mg under s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
He argued that his roadside admission that he was the driver was statutorily compelled under the Highway Traffic Act and therefore inadmissible under s. 7 of the Charter, and that his s. 10(b) right to counsel was infringed when police refused his request to call his parents.
The court held that, given the statutory obligation under ss. 199–200 of the Highway Traffic Act to report an accident and identify oneself to police, the appellant’s admission that he was the driver was compelled and should not have been admitted.
The court rejected the trial judge’s reliance on hypothetical cross‑examination suggesting the appellant would have made the admission anyway.
However, the court found no reversible error regarding the right to counsel analysis.
The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.