Mr. Edmonton was acquitted of driving while over 80. The trial judge in his terse reasons noted that when Mr. Edmonton was contacting counsel at the station he got a message that said "call me back in ten minutes” which was “not the officer’s fault, but that’s not an implementational – doesn’t satisfy the implementational aspect of the right to counsel”. The Crown was unsuccessful at the first appeal and the appeal judge also speculated that perhaps Mr. Edmonton spoke to a law student or some other inadequate advisor. The Crown's appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered. In doing so, the Court quoted a passage from the Supreme Court of Canada case of R. v. Willier:
While s. 10(b) requires the police to afford a detainee a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel and to facilitate that contact, it does not require them to monitor the quality of the advice once contact is made. The solicitor-client relationship is one of confidence, premised upon privileged communication. Respect for the integrity of this relationship makes it untenable for the police to be responsible, as arbiters, for monitoring the quality of legal advice received by a detainee. To impose such a duty on the police would be incompatible with the privileged nature of the relationship. The police cannot be required to mandate a particular qualitative standard of advice, nor are they entitled to inquire into the content of the advice provided. Further, even if such a duty were warranted, the applicable standard of adequacy is unclear. R. v. Edmonton, 2014 ABCA 186