The accused was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol after being pulled over on Highway 410 early in the morning.
The Crown admitted its case on the merits, and the sole issue at trial was whether the accused's right to counsel of choice had been breached.
The court found that police failed to fully inform the accused of her right to counsel and failed to facilitate her access to counsel of choice.
Instead, police funneled the accused toward duty counsel through a binary choice presentation, despite her clear indication that she wished to contact her boyfriend to obtain private counsel.
The court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter and dismissed the charge.