The accused was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol.
At trial, the sole issue was whether her s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel of choice was breached.
The accused, who was hysterical and hyperventilating, wished to contact her boyfriend to obtain a private lawyer, but police refused to let her call him directly and instead funnelled her to speak with duty counsel.
The court found that the police failed to fully inform the accused of her right to counsel of choice and failed to facilitate that right, creating a false dichotomy between police calling her boyfriend or her speaking to duty counsel.
The court concluded that the s. 10(b) breach was serious and excluded the breath sample evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in the dismissal of the charge.
