Does a random stop of a motor vehicle violate section 10(b) of the Charter?

In the same context, the applicant also addresses the principle set out in Hufsky v. The Queen (1988), 1988 CanLII 72 (SCC), 40 C.C.C. (3d) 398 (S.C.C.) (“Hufsky”), to the effect that although the random stop of a motor vehicle violates s. 9 of the Charter, “. . . the Courts have held that given the objective of detecting and deterring impaired driving the law permitting such an arbitrary detention is a reasonable limit that is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society and hence, like the limit on the right to counsel, saved by resort to. s.1 of the Charter.” ; applicant’s written submissions at para. 19. In Thomsen, Le Dain J. is clear that a motorist is detained within the meaning of s. 10 when being investigated pursuant to the predecessor to section. s. 254(2), and that the provision violates the right of an individual to retain and instruct counsel without delay, but that the s. 10(b) violation is justified by s. 1 of the Charter.