R v Zoghaib – 2005 OJ No 5947 (SCJ – Fragomeni):

[39] In this case Ms. Zoghaib did not mention the name of a specific lawyer nor did she advise P.C. Henry that she wished to call her parents to contact a lawyer. As a result P.C. Henry contacted Duty Counsel and Ms. Zoghaib spoke to Duty Counsel for six minutes.
|
[54] In all of the circumstances of this case I find and conclude that the learned judge erred in law in finding that Ms. Zoghaib’s section 10(b) rights were breached.

UPHELD BY OCA: 2006 OJ No 1023: [1] THE COURT (endorsement):– We are in substantial agreement with the analysis of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court. The appellant was fully advised of her right to counsel at the roadside and understood those rights. On the finding of fact made by the trial judge, any subsequent misapprehension by the appellant of her right to contact her own lawyer as opposed to duty counsel was a product of her own thought processes, none of which were conveyed to or known by the officer. The Summary Conviction Appeal Court correctly held that as a matter of law the appellant’s unexpressed desire to speak to her own lawyer could not result in a breach of s. 10(b) of the Charter.
[2] The appeal is dismissed.