Facts: On October 1, 1983, Therens was stopped by a police officer for driving erratically.

The officer
suspected that Therens was driving under the influence of alcohol and asked him to take a breathalyzer
test. Therens refused to take the test until he had spoken with his lawyer. The officer informed him that
he did not have the right to speak with his lawyer before taking the test and that if he continued to
refuse, he would be charged with refusing to comply with a lawful demand. Therens eventually took the
test and was found to have exceeded the legal limit for blood alcohol concentration.

Issues: The main issue in this case was whether or not Therens had been detained within the meaning of
s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when he was asked to take a breathalyzer test.
If he had been detained, then he would have had the right to speak with his lawyer before taking the
test.

Arguments: Therens argued that he had been detained within the meaning of s. 10(b) of the Charter
when he was asked to take a breathalyzer test because he had been deprived of his liberty by being
required to remain at the scene until he took the test. He also argued that his right to counsel had been
violated because he had not been informed of his right to speak with a lawyer before taking the test.
The Crown argued that Therens had not been detained within the meaning of s. 10(b) of the Charter
because he had not been physically restrained or deprived of his freedom in any way. The Crown also
argued that even if Therens had been detained, his right to counsel had not been violated because there
was no obligation on police officers to inform suspects of their right to counsel before making a
breathalyzer demand. Interpretation done by court: The Court held that Therens had indeed been
detained within the meaning of s. 10(b) of the Charter when he was asked to take a breathalyzer test.
The Court found that detention occurs when an individual's liberty is significantly restrained, and that
Therens had been significantly restrained by being required to remain at the scene until he took the test.
The Court also held that Therens' right to counsel had been violated because he had not been informed
of his right to speak with a lawyer before taking the test. The Court found that the right to counsel is an
essential component of an individual's right to a fair trial, and that it is necessary for suspects to be
informed of this right in order for

R v Therens is a landmark case in Canadian law that dealt with the right to counsel in relation to
breathalyzer demands under the Canadian Criminal Code. The case involved a man named Therens who
was stopped by a police officer for driving erratically on October 1, 1983. The officer suspected that
Therens was driving under the influence of alcohol and asked him to take a breathalyzer test. Therens
refused to take the test until he had spoken with his lawyer. The officer informed him that he did not
have the right to speak with his lawyer before taking the test and that if he continued to refuse, he
would be charged with refusing to comply with a lawful demand. Therens eventually took the test and
was found to have exceeded the legal limit for blood alcohol concentration. The main issue in this case
was whether or not Therens had been detained within the meaning of s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms when he was asked to take a breathalyzer test. If he had been detained, then he
would have had the right to speak with his lawyer before taking the test. Therens argued that he had
been detained within the meaning of s. 10(b) of the Charter when he was asked to take a breathalyzer
test because he had been deprived of his liberty by being required to remain at the scene until he took
the test. He also argued that his right to counsel had been violated because he had not been informed of
his right to speak with a lawyer before taking the test. The Crown argued that Therens had not been
detained within the meaning of s. 10(b) of the Charter because he had not been physically restrained or
deprived of his freedom in any way. The Crown also argued that even if Therens had been detained, his
right to counsel had not been violated because there was no obligation on police officers to inform
suspects of their right to counsel before making a breathalyzer demand. The Court held that Therens
had indeed been detained within the meaning of s. 10(b) of the Charter when he was asked to take a
breathalyzer test. The Court found that detention occurs when an individual's liberty is significantly
restrained, and that Therens had been significantly restrained by being required to remain at the scene
until he took the test. The Court also held that Therens' right to counsel had been violated because he
had not been informed of his right to speak with a lawyer before taking the test. In reaching its decision,
the Court relied on the principle of expressio unius

The principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which translates to "the expression of one thing is
the exclusion of another," is a legal maxim that is often used in statutory interpretation. It means that
when a statute explicitly mentions certain things, it implies the exclusion of all other things not
mentioned. In the case of R v Therens, the Court applied this principle in interpreting s. 10(b) of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The section provides that everyone has the right to retain and
instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right upon arrest or detention. The Court
found that because s. 10(b) explicitly mentions arrest or detention, it implies the exclusion of other
situations where an individual's liberty may be significantly restrained. The Crown had argued that
Therens had not been detained within the meaning of s. 10(b) because he had not been physically
restrained or deprived of his freedom in any way. However, the Court rejected this argument and held
that detention occurs when an individual's liberty is significantly restrained, regardless of whether
physical restraints are used. The Court's application of expressio unius est exclusio alterius in this case
highlights the importance of careful statutory interpretation in ensuring that individuals' rights are
protected. By explicitly mentioning arrest or detention in s. 10(b), the Charter ensures that individuals
who are significantly restrained by law enforcement officials have access to legal counsel to protect their
rights and interests. Overall, R v Therens serves as an important reminder for legal practitioners and
scholars alike about the significance of legal maxims such as expressio unius est exclusio alterius in
interpreting statutes and protecting individuals' rights under the law.