A call that I frequently get from clients is whether they should dispute a 90-day driving prohibition for DUI. Many people are concerned that because they blew “Fail” into two different breathalyzers or because they admitted to consuming alcohol to the police that they will not have any chance of success in their driving prohibition dispute. The reality is that this could not be further from the truth.
I have an excellent track record of success in disputing DUI charges and driving prohibitions, and so this blog post will outline a few of the reasons why you should not count yourself out before consulting with a lawyer.
Since the introduction of the random breath testing provisions, an old article has been making the rounds once again. It’s an important story, because it gets at the very heart of what the problems are with random breath testing and how it can railroad otherwise good people.
Many people are sympathetic to the story of Margaret MacDonald, a woman in her eighties who was given a roadside prohibition, while completely sober, after she was alleged to have refused a breathalyzer test. However, Ms. MacDonald did not refuse; due to her age, the cold weather, and the rough treatment by the police in that case, she was incapable of blowing properly.
What many do not know, however, is the rest of the story. And the rest of the story is just as important.
A few months ago, I wrote about the awful amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act that allow the Superintendent to prepare their own material, under the guise of “technical materials” to determine cases. This material, pursuant to the legislation, is only to be used for the purpose of determining issues raised by the applicant.
The problem with the Superintendent being able to do this was that the Superintendent is then presumed to be an expert on issues which he is, frankly, not. At the time, I predicted that the Superintendent would simply rewrite science in order to advance the goal of upholding IRPs. And, unfortunately, I was right.
Today, I received word on an IRP hearing that the Superintendent would be relying on Technical Materials, including a new version of the ASD manual that was posted on their site today. I dropped everything to read this new version of the manual, and I saw something I expected to see.
Back in 1975, the Supreme Court of Canada made a groundbreaking decision on drunk driving. The decision was about the admissibility of breathalyzer test results presented in court. In this decision, the Court held that breathalyzer results, even absent evidence the breath sample was lawfully obtained, could still be used in court to convict a driver for being over the blood alcohol limit, with this caveat: as long as the driver did in fact provide a breath sample, and a certificate of analysis was admitted into evidence.
In plain English, what the court was saying is that if you provided a breath sample, even if the demand for the breath sample was unlawful, the results of that breath test could be used against you in court.
Since then, courts across the country have gone back and forth about whether that decision remains good law or whether it's absolutely bonkers that unlawfully obtained evidence is somehow still admissible in court.
In my last blog post, I wrote about how the Government’s proposed changes to the drunk driving laws will reduce your defences by limiting the disclosure that is available to you. This week, I am going to write about another significant limit on your defences, and that is the fact that the Government is eliminating the defences related to when you drank, and when you drove.
By eliminating this, what we can see is that the Government wants you to have a criminal record for drinking and driving, even if you have done nothing wrong.
Canada’s so-called legalization of marijuana comes with several consequences, including the new framework for mandatory random breath testing roadside. But there are other significant consequences that still need to be unpacked in this legislation.
Today’s blog post is going to outline a few of the other problematic changes to the alcohol-impaired driving legislation, and particularly those that have received less attention. In this post, I am going to deal with one of the other significant changes: reducing the number of defences available to drivers. This will be part one of a two-part blog post on reducing the defences, as there is a lot to discuss here.
On Thursday, the Liberal Government revealed its plan for marijuana legalization. Surprising to many was the fact that the Liberals introduced this as part of an omnibus bill that makes amendments to other parts of the Criminal Code, including the impaired driving legislation. Omnibus bills were commonly criticized by them as tactics used by their predecessor to pass bad legislation. These proposed changes also hide some of the more disturbing aspects the Government has introduced in furtherance of its stated goal to legalize marijuana.
I am deeply disturbed by changes that the Government has proposed, in particular the proposal to conduct random breath tests of drivers.
Over the next few blog posts, I am going to share some of my views on this proposed legislation and why I believe it to be constitutionally deficient.
This past week, the Middelaer family is again in the news. Not only were the announcements made about the winners of the Alexa's Team Awards - a foolish way to encourage sloppy policing - but Alexa's Bus was processing impaired drivers over the weekend. Or so the Government would have you believe.
If the British Columbia government spent $300,000 on a Skytrain line that was never used by passengers, citizens would be up in arms about irresponsible government spending. If they fundraised the $300,000 for the Skytrain, and then paid taxpayer money to staff it, maintain it, and ensure that it was functional and operational, the public would be furious.
The same situation exists for Alexa's Bus.
In our law office, we deal with more roadside drinking and driving cases than any other law firm in the province. As a result, I probably speak with more people about drinking and driving in a month than many lawyers will in a year. I've come to realize that there are some very common and pervasive misconceptions about drinking and driving that exist in our province. This post will help to dispel a lot of those myths.
Between the race to develop a marijuana "breathalyzer" and the legalization of marijuana in U.S. border states like Colorado and Washington, there has been a great deal of discussion about drug impaired driving law in British Columbia and Canada. Many groups such as MADD Canada and the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse have been putting pressure on government to establish "per se" limits for drugs in the body. But will this really deal with the problem of drug-impaired driving? And is drug-impaired driving really a problem in Canada?
Vancouver Criminal Lawyer with a focus on impaired driving, cannabis legalization and related issues, and immediate roadside prohibition defence.