Article

Bartle Case

Published Online February 7, 2006

Last Edited June 10, 2015

In the Bartle case (1994), Mr Bartle was arrested at 1:00 a.m. on a weekend for driving a vehicle while impaired. After failing the "Alert" road test, he was brought to the police station, where he was promptly informed of his right to consult a lawyer, including available legal aid services.

Bartle Case

In the Bartle case (1994), Mr Bartle was arrested at 1:00 a.m. on a weekend for driving a vehicle while impaired. After failing the "Alert" road test, he was brought to the police station, where he was promptly informed of his right to consult a lawyer, including available legal aid services. However, the police failed to inform Bartle of the availability of "standby" lawyers and the possibility of resorting to them at any hour of the day or night by means of an "800" telephone number. A majority of the Supreme Court was of the opinion that this omission undermined the rights guaranteed by section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as Mr Bartle was not properly informed of his rights and may have been misled about the nature and extent of his right to counsel, particularly given the timing of his arrest. The evidence procured from Mr Bartle was rendered inadmissible by section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.