The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit.
At trial, the accused brought Charter applications alleging breaches of his rights to counsel and privacy.
The court dismissed the s. 10(b) claims, finding the brief delay in providing rights to counsel was justified and the accused freely chose to speak to duty counsel.
However, the court found a s. 8 breach because the accused was video recorded urinating in his cell without reasonable privacy measures.
Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breath sample evidence under s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the police's ongoing failure to address washroom privacy despite prior judicial pronouncements.
The charge was dismissed.
