The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and refusing to provide a breath sample.
At trial, the defendant brought a Charter application alleging violations of her right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter.
The court found two distinct breaches of the defendant's right to counsel: a four-minute delay in informing her of her rights, and a more serious violation of her right to counsel of choice when police failed to disclose that a contact was attempting to arrange for a lawyer and instead rushed her to speak with duty counsel.
The court excluded evidence of the refusal to provide a breath sample under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the serious nature of the violations and their impact on the defendant's Charter-protected interests outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on the merits.
The court also dismissed the impaired driving charge, finding the admissible evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Both charges were dismissed.
