On a pre-trial Charter application in a first degree murder prosecution, the accused alleged that his s. 10(b) rights were breached because his brief Brydges duty counsel consultation was constitutionally deficient and because police failed to facilitate a second consultation before routine post-arrest evidence-gathering steps.
The court held that the police fulfilled both their informational and implementational duties by promptly advising the accused of his rights and facilitating private contact with duty counsel at the first reasonable opportunity.
Applying Sinclair, Willier, LaFrance, and Dussault, the court found no objectively observable change in circumstances and no basis requiring police to monitor advice quality or provide renewed access before photographs, fingerprints, clothing seizure, and hand swabs.
The court further held that duty counsel providing summary legal advice is not a state actor and that s. 10(b) guarantees access to counsel, not the quality of legal advice received.
