Challenge
The defence raised two key Charter concerns. First, whether police properly respected Mr. M’s right to consult counsel of choice. Second, whether misleading testimony from the arresting officer compromised his right to a fair trial.
After arriving at the station, Mr. M chose to consult a trusted friend who was a licensed paralegal rather than a lawyer. The Crown argued that police had given him the opportunity to speak with counsel and that he proceeded voluntarily. More significantly, during testimony and cross-examination, the arresting officer gave contradictory accounts of:
- The nature of the RIDE stop
- The circumstances leading to the roadside screening
- His understanding of whether Mr. M had spoken with a lawyer
The stop began at a RIDE checkpoint; our guide to what triggers an arrest at a RIDE checkpoint describes that first stage.
Our Process
- Planning the case. We reviewed all disclosure, including officer notes, body camera records and breathalyzer documentation, and examined Charter compliance line by line.
- Evaluating the situation. We assessed whether Mr. M had meaningfully exercised his right to counsel and whether the officer’s testimony could withstand cross-examination.
- Challenging the evidence in court. During trial, we exposed contradictions in the officer’s evidence and highlighted inconsistencies about the RIDE stop and the consultation with counsel.
- Establishing fair trial concerns. We argued that misleading testimony from a person in authority undermines the truth-seeking function of the justice system and breaches an accused person’s right to a fair trial.
Result
The court determined that, although Mr. M had expressed satisfaction with the advice he received before providing breath samples, the officer’s misleading testimony raised serious concerns about trial fairness.
Justice D emphasized that few actions undermine the integrity of the justice system more than misleading testimony from someone in authority.
The court excluded the breathalyzer evidence. Without that key evidence, the Crown could not proceed. The court acquitted Mr. M of all impaired driving charges.
Cross-examination is one of the defences that matter most in DUI cases, and this result shows how to decide whether to fight your DUI charge when the disclosure does not add up.
Every case is different, and past results do not predict future outcomes.