After being on the phone for 27 minutes with a lawyer, the accused said he wanted to call another lawyer because he was not happy with his consultation. He did not say why he was unhappy or that it was inadequate. It could not be said that it was inadequate because of brevity. Police told him he had his opportunity and proceeded with the breath tests. The court held that the accused's rights had not been breached. Neither the Charter nor any cases decided under it say that the police must continue to offer an accused the right to contact counsel until the accused is happy with the advice the accused receives after contacting counsel. To do so, without the accused providing an explanation why he is not happy with the advice he receives, would allow the accused “to delay needlessly and with impunity an investigation”. In this case the accused did not provide any explanation and police were entitled to move forward with the investigation. R. v. Tyisek, 2011 ABQB 560