The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.
At the police station, the appellant was provided with an outdated list of lawyers and contacted a lawyer who was suspended from practice.
The trial judge found a breach of the appellant's s. 10(b) Charter rights but admitted the breathalyzer evidence under s. 24(2).
On appeal, the Superior Court found the trial judge erred in characterizing the breach as minor and technical.
Conducting a fresh s. 24(2) analysis, the court held the systemic failure to provide an updated list of lawyers was a serious breach that significantly impacted the appellant's rights.
The breathalyzer evidence was excluded, the conviction was set aside, and an acquittal was entered.
