Case information

Criminal law — Criminal procedure — Right to counsel — Immediacy criterion under subsection 254(2) of Criminal Code — Stare decisis — Accused found guilty of refusal to comply with demand made under subsection 254(2) of Criminal Code — Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in stating that it was bound by principle of stare decisis having regard to another decision of that court even though it found that decision to be wrong in law in its interpretation of decisions of Supreme Court — Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in stating that right to counsel is suspended despite police officer’s inability to give accused opportunity to provide breath sample forthwith in case of demand under subsection 254(2) of Criminal Code — Whether constitutional right under section 10(b) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies where police officers, although acting pursuant to Criminal Code, fail to comply with obligation of immediacy under it — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in stating that demand under subsection 254(2) of Criminal Code is invalid where officer is not able to give immediate effect to demand to provide requested sample.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The accused, Mr. Piazza, was arrested by a police officer after refusing to cooperate and to take a breathalyzer test. The Municipal Court found the accused guilty of refusal to comply with a demand made under subsection 254(2) of the Criminal Code. The Superior Court acquitted the accused. It held on the basis of the case law that the Municipal Court judge had erred in law in claiming that the right of the accused to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had not been violated. The Superior Court found that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden of proving that the violation was justified, and acquitted the accused on that basis. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and restored the Municipal Court’s finding of guilt.