When placed under arrest for refusing to provide a breath sample, what are the Charter breaches alleged by the accused against the accused?

The second Charter breach alleged by the accused relates to the fact that when placed under arrest for refusing to provide a breath sample, the accused, when he was back at the police station after saying that he would talk to his lawyer on his own time, should have been given a secondary warning. The defence relies on the decision in Prosper v. The Queen, 1994 CanLII 65 (SCC), 92 C.C.C. (3d) 353 (S.C.C.). At p. 381, Lamer C.J.C., said this: In addition, once a detainee asserts his or her right to counsel and is duly diligent in exercising it, thereby triggering the obligation on the police to hold up, the standard required to constitute effective waiver of this right will be high. Upon the detainee doing something which suggests he or she has changed his or her mind and no longer wishes to speak to a lawyer, police will be required to advise the detainee of his or her right to a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel and of their obligation during this time not to elicit incriminating evidence from the detainee.