The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.
After providing a first breath sample, the accused became argumentative and claimed the officer was contradicting the legal advice she received from duty counsel.
The officer placed a second call to duty counsel but proceeded to take the second breath sample when the accused stated she wanted to get it over with.
The accused argued her s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was breached because she was not given a second opportunity to consult counsel and the officer failed to hold off.
The court found no s. 10(b) violation, concluding there was no objectively observable change in circumstances requiring a second consultation, and the accused unequivocally waived any further right.
The court also held that even if a breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).
The accused was found guilty.
