dui/impaired driving – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – right to counsel -  accused given opportunity to call lawyer at police station – after seven minutes, accused knocked on door and told officer he could not reach his own lawyer - police told accused about legal aid and other lawyers’ numbers in phone book – accused declined to call anyone else – defence argued that police should have ensured valid waiver or offered accused more time – convicted at trial and appeal dismissed – police officer did not interrupt the appellant in his efforts to reach counsel, nor did he do anything that interfered with the appellant’s exercise of his right to consult his lawyer - the appellant knocked on the door because he had  terminated his efforts and was ready to proceed to the next step – the waiver requirement is not applicable here.

The appellant appeals the judgment of the summary conviction appeal court dismissing his appeal against conviction of an offence under s. 253(b) of the Criminal Code. The appellant argues that the provincial court judge and the summary conviction appeal court judge erred in law in finding that the appellant’s right to consult counsel had not been breached and in admitting the breathalyser certificate into evidence.
 
On December 8, 2002, a member of the Edmonton City Police arrested the appellant for impaired driving. The police officer advised him of his right to consult a lawyer, informed him of the availability of legal aid and duty counsel, and read the demand requiring the appellant to provide samples of his breath for analysis. The appellant advised that he wished to consult his lawyer.

On arriving at the police station, the police officer took the appellant to a private phone room which contained a working telephone, phone books and a list of lawyers who had indicated their availability for consultation. The police officer explained the use of the phone, and told the appellant to knock on the door when he was finished.