The accused was charged with impaired driving.
After being informed of his right to counsel, he called his wife to contact a lawyer.
Immediately after the call, police demanded a breath sample, which he provided.
The trial judge convicted the accused, finding no Charter violation.
The District Court allowed the appeal, finding a violation.
The Court of Appeal restored the conviction.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the accused's right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter was violated by the police's failure to afford him a reasonable opportunity to contact a lawyer, the breathalyzer evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2).
The police's hastiness was provoked by the accused's actively obstructive and stalling behaviour, meaning the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
