The accused in the case was charged with drunk driving contrary to the Criminal Code after having been taken to a police station and given a breathalyzer.

This raised the concern as to whether the accused would be able to have a full defence, as is expected under common law rules of natural justice.

According to the Supreme Court, the legislative history of the Criminal Code indicated that it was intended that the accused need not be given breath samples.

This phrase had an ambiguous meaning, whereas the term natural justice was understood to provide certain procedural legal protections.

[1] As the Court wrote, I would take them to mean, generally, that the tribunal which adjudicates upon his rights must act fairly, in good faith, without bias, and in a judicial temper, and must give to him the opportunity adequately to state his case.However, the author of the majority opinion, Chief Justice Gérald Fauteux, did say that he was not trying "to formulate any final definition" of fundamental justice.