The police officer then read the following to Bartle from a pre-printed card: You have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay.

The officer asked Bartle if he wanted to speak to a lawyer "now", notwithstanding there was no telephone in the area.

Bartle then provided two samples of his breath, indicated that he had a blood alcohol content over the legal limit, and was charged accordingly.

The trial judge found there was no requirement for the police to advise Bartle of the existence of duty counsel or the toll-free number, and that there was no Charter infringement.

The summary conviction appeal was heard in the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division).

The appeal judge found there was a requirement for the police to advise Bartle of the existence of duty counsel and the toll-free number, and that there was a Charter infringement.

The majority found that the proper application of Brydges required the police to advise a detainee in all cases the existence of duty counsel and the toll-free number.

L'Heureux-Dubé J found that even if she agreed with the majority on the first issue, she would not have excluded the breath readings.