The accused was charged with refusing to comply with a demand to provide breath samples.
The Crown's case was straightforward: the police had proper grounds to demand samples and the accused verbally refused.
The sole issue was whether the accused, whose first language was Russian, was provided meaningful access to counsel in a comprehensible manner.
The court found that the police took appropriate steps to accommodate the language barrier, including repeating rights, explaining them in plain language, arranging for a Russian-speaking officer, and securing a Russian-speaking duty counsel.
Although the accused claimed confusion about his legal obligations, the court found he understood his choices and their consequences through the translation provided during the breath testing procedure.
The conviction was upheld.
