The accused was charged with impaired operation and 'over 80'.
An off-duty police officer observed the accused pushing a damaged vehicle in live traffic and arrested him, but failed to provide a complete right to counsel caution.
A second officer subsequently breached the implementation component of s. 10(b) by asking investigative questions before the accused had a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel.
The court excluded post-arrest evidence, including a video recording, under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
However, based on the off-duty officer's pre-arrest observations of the accused's unsafe operation of the vehicle, unsteadiness, odour of alcohol, and red, watery eyes, the court found the accused guilty of impaired operation.
