The accused was arrested on charges of murder and arson and spoke with counsel by telephone at the police station.
The lawyer indicated he was coming to meet the accused in person; the officer's ambiguous response led both the lawyer and the accused to believe the in-person meeting would occur.
Police subsequently refused to allow counsel to meet the accused and conducted an interrogation during which the accused made an incriminating statement while repeatedly expressing confusion about his lawyer's absence.
The SCC held that, in these unique circumstances, the police were required to provide a further opportunity to consult counsel before questioning, as two acts by the officer had the combined effect of undermining the legal advice received, triggering a renewed right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.
The appeal was dismissed and the exclusion of the statement under s. 24(2) was upheld.
