The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.
At trial, the accused argued his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was violated because he did not understand the informational component of his rights due to a language barrier.
The court found objective evidence that English was not the accused's first language and that he struggled to comprehend his rights and the reason for his arrest.
Applying the Vanstaceghem test, the court held that special circumstances existed requiring the police to provide language interpretation.
The s. 10(b) breach was established, the breath evidence was excluded, and the accused was acquitted.
