The respondent, Patrick Dussault, was charged with both second-degree murder and arson. At the police station, Mr. Dussault chose to speak to Mr. Benoit, a lawyer he did not know, whom he selected from a list provided by police. During the initial phone call, Mr. Benoit informed Mr. Dussault, that in light of the serious nature of the charges, he, Mr. Benoit, would come to the station and speak to Mr. Dussault in person. Nevertheless, Mr. Dussault began to speak to Mr. Benoit in confidence by telephone. Just over an hour later, Mr. Benoit arrived at the police station, but was not permitted to speak with Mr. Dussault because, in the opinion of investigators, the respondent had already exercised his right to counsel during the initial phone call. The investigators consulted with prosecuting counsel, who advised them that, in her opinion, Mr. Dussault had in fact exercised his right to counsel. The investigators maintained their initial position and did not allow further consultation between Mr. Dussault and Mr. Benoit at the station. Thereafter, Mr. Dussault was interrogated and made an incriminating statement to police.

Prior to trial, at a voir dire, Mr. Dussault moved to exclude said statement under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel. The trial judge admitted the statements into evidence and a jury found Mr. Dussault guilty of second-degree murder. 

The narrow issue on appeal was whether Mr. Dussault had exhausted his right to counsel at the conclusion of his initial telephone call with his lawyer, or whether Mr. Dussault should have been allowed to consult with Mr. Benoit, in person, at the police station, in order to fully exhaust his right to counsel. The Quebec Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and quashed the jury’s guilty verdict.

The Crown was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.