R. v. Tremblay (1987), 25 O.A.C. 93 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
Michael G. Tremblay v. Her Majesty the Queen
(No. 20022)
Indexed As: R. v. Tremblay
Supreme Court of Canada
Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ.
October 15, 1987.
Summary:
The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol level. After his arrest he was informed of his right to counsel and provided with a phone. The accused called his wife with the intention that she would contact a lawyer. Immediately after the call to his wife, the police demanded a breath sample which the accused complied with. The accused alleged that he was denied his right to counsel as guaranteed by s. 10(b) of the Charter. The trial judge convicted the accused. The court held that there was no denial of the accused’s right to counsel. The accused appealed.
The Ontario District Court, in a decision reported at (1985), 34 M.V.R. 117, allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal. The Crown appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal in an endorsement on the record allowed the appeal and restored the conviction. The accused appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The court held that although the accused’s right to counsel as guaranteed by s. 10(b) of the Charter was violated, the evidence was admissible because of the accused’s conduct throughout the investigation. The court stated that to admit the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Civil Rights – Topic 4604
Right to counsel – Denial of – What constitutes – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 4610
below].
Civil Rights – Topic 4610
Right to counsel – General – Impaired driving – Demand for breath sample – An accused was stopped for impaired driving – After his arrest the accused was advised of his right to counsel and given a phone – The accused contacted his wife with the intention that she would contact a lawyer – Immediately after the phone call a breathalyzer demand was made which the accused complied with – The accused was “deliberately attempting to make the investigation difficult and was actively obstructing it” – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accused was denied his right to counsel as guaranteed by s. 10(b) of the Charter – The court held however that given the actions of the accused throughout the investigation, the admittance of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Civil Rights – Topic 8368
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Denial of rights – Remedies – Exclusion of evidence – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 4610
above].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192, appld. [para. 9].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 10(b) [paras. 3, 6]; sect. 24(2) [paras. 2, 3, 6, 9].
Counsel:
Terri H. Semanyk, for the appellant;
David A. Fairgrieve, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Shanbaum, Semanyk & Story, Ottawa, for the appellant;
Attorney General for Ontario, Toronto, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on April 3, 1987, before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on October 15, 1987, by Lamer, J.
