The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80.
At trial, the appellant argued that his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter was violated when police failed to facilitate his request to speak to a lawyer and continued to question him about his alcohol consumption.
The trial judge dismissed the Charter application and convicted the appellant, rejecting his bolus drinking defence based partly on his statements to police.
On appeal, the Superior Court found that the police breached s. 10(b) by failing to provide a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel and by eliciting evidence.
Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the appellant's statements under s. 24(2) and ordered a new trial.
