Justice T.R. Lipson

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and refusing to provide a breath sample following a single-vehicle collision on Highway 401.

The Crown established that the accused was the driver of the damaged vehicle through circumstantial evidence, including possession of car keys, proximity to the vehicle, and flight from the scene.

The court found the accused guilty of both charges.

The court rejected Charter arguments regarding sections 8, 9, and 10(b), finding that the 13-minute delay in informing the accused of his right to counsel was a technical breach with no serious impact.

The court also rejected the defence argument that the accused's subsequent offer to provide a breath sample after being charged negated the refusal offence, finding the offer was not genuine and the officer was justified in declining it.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation and drive over 80 mgs following a motor vehicle accident.

The defence raised two Charter issues: (1) whether the defendant's section 10(b) right to counsel was violated when police offered duty counsel in Mandarin rather than permitting the defendant to use his cell phone to search for a lawyer of his choice; and (2) whether the arrest and approved instrument demand violated sections 8 and 9 Charter rights due to lack of reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found no Charter breaches.

The defendant's primary concern was obtaining legal advice in Mandarin, which was satisfied by duty counsel.

The officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on the serious accident, evidence of alcohol consumption, and observable signs of impairment.

The defendant was convicted of both offences.