Digest: R v Ector, 2018 SKCA 46

• Date: June 18, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKCA 46

Docket Number: CA17157 , CACR 2931

Court: Court of Appeal

Date: 2018-06-18

Judges:

• Richards
• Caldwell
• Schwann

Subjects:

• Criminal Law � Motor Vehicle Offences � Driving with Blood Alcohol Exceeding Limit � Conviction � Appeal
• Constitutional Law � Charter of Rights, Section 10(b)

Digest: The appellant had been charged with driving while his blood alcohol content exceeded the legal limit pursuant to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code and with impaired driving under s. 253(1)(a). The defence brought an application alleging a breach of the appellant�s s. 10(b) Charter rights and a voir dire was held. After failing an ASD test, the appellant had been arrested and given the police warning, informed of his right to counsel and told that Legal Aid counsel was available. As the appellant wanted to consult with a lawyer, the officer placed him in the phone room at the detachment and asked him the name of the one he wanted to contact. When the appellant replied that he wanted to speak with his parents to obtain the name of their lawyer, the officer refused the request because he was an adult but offered to call them on his behalf. The officer telephoned from another room and reached the appellant�s mother. The officer testified that the mother provided the name of the law firm she used. In the mother�s testimony, she said that she gave the officer the name of the lawyer who worked for them on property transactions and suggested the name of another lawyer she had used in the same firm. She was not cross-examined on her testimony. The officer provided only the law firm name to the appellant and advised him that he could call the law firm and select one of the lawyers, select another lawyer altogether or speak with Legal Aid counsel. The appellant elected the first option. The officer placed the call but reached an automated answering machine message that recited the lawyers in the firm, he hung up. The appellant was informed and he again asked the officer if he could speak to his parents. The officer refused his request and told him to select the name of specific lawyer from the law firm�s directory. He then called the law firm again and the appellant randomly selected a lawyer from the list provided and left a message. The lawyer did not return the call and the appellant then spoke with Legal Aid duty counsel. After the conversation the appellant asked to speak with another lawyer to obtain a second opinion because he wanted to know if there were other options, but the officer denied his request. The officer did not ask him why he wanted a second opinion and the appellant did not express any dissatisfaction with the duty counsel. The appellant testified that he could not think of anything else he could have done to obtain the name of his parents� lawyer. The trial judge concluded that the appellant had been given more than a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel of choice and was not concerned with the discrepancy in the...