The appellant appealed a summary conviction for care or control of a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit.
The trial judge had admitted breath test evidence despite finding breaches of the appellant’s ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights and attempted to remedy the breach by reducing the fine.
The appeal court held that the trial judge erred in the s. 24(2) analysis by unreasonably characterizing serious police misconduct as minimal and by admitting evidence obtained following unlawful trespass, arbitrary detention, and fabricated explanations by police.
The court further found a violation of the informational component of the right to counsel under s. 10(b) because police failed to take additional steps where the detainee’s understanding was uncertain.
The evidence should have been excluded and, without it, the Crown had no case.
