Impaired driving trial. When the accused was first read his 10(b) rights he made a number of equivocal statements in response to being asked whether he wanted to call a lawyer. Ultimately, in the same conversation the accused said “no”. A 10(b) waiver was never read to the accused.

Held: 10(b) breach. Evidence excluded.

Ellis 2014 ABPC 253 followed. Onus on the Crown to prove on a balance of probabilities a clear and unequivocal waiver. Given the accused’s initial ambiguous responses, his ultimate answer of “no” when asked if he wanted to call a lawyer was insufficient. A formal waiver needed to be read.

P. Brunnen – Defence Counsel