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.
Receiving a Notice of Intent to Prohibit can be a stressful experience. But these letters often take people by surprise. Often, that should not be the case. However, it appears that the Notice of Intent to Prohibit system at ICBC is fundamentally flawed, and therefore incapable of being administered in the proper way.
There is some serious oversight in this program that is missing, and some significant concerns about the manner in which these reviews take place that need to be addressed by ICBC and the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.
Since the move toward legalization of recreational marijuana began after the last federal election, a lot of discussion has taken place surrounding marijuana-impaired driving. What has never been clear throughout all this discussion is what the existing state of the law is when it comes to cannabis impairment and driving. This has not been assisted by the introduction of Bill C-46, which creates separate offences involving marijuana and driving.
This post breaks down marijuana impaired driving as it currently stands in British Columbia and under federal criminal law.
The Senate is currently considering legislation aimed at targeting the problem of impaired drivers on our roadways. It's a noble goal to be sure. However, the law has the potential to significantly impact small business, and in particular businesses that rely on driving and transportation.
Part of Bill C-46 involves the creation of a criminal law scheme that addresses the potential risks of marijuana-impaired driving. However, the bill proposes adding a new criminal offence of impaired driving at certain blood alcohol concentrations of THC, and imposing particular sentences for these offences. These are known in law as per se limits.
Episode two of the Driving Law with Kyla Lee podcast is here. On this episode, I speak with former British Columbia Solicitor General and West Vancouver Police Department Chief of Police Kash Heed about impaired driving investigations, how we got the Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme, and the pitfalls of rewarding police for issuing driving prohibitions.
You can find the podcast on SoundCloud at this link.
In a move that resembles what the Federal Government did with its overhaul of impaired driving laws, the Provincial Government has hidden some very disturbing changes to the alcohol-impaired driving provisions in the new law addressing cannabis-impaired driving.
Of course, the legislation was tabled with a variety of bills, all of which were designed to create a regulatory framework for cannabis legalization in British Columbia. So it was no surprise that the media did not notice or report on the surreptitious tweaks made to alcohol impaired driving provisions in the Motor Vehicle Act.
But I did. And I’m here to explain them, and why they are seriously problematic.
This morning, the Provincial Government finally unveiled its regulatory framework for dealing with the issue of marijuana-impaired driving, come legalization of recreational cannabis. The purpose of this blog post is to explain the changes to BC’s Motor Vehicle Act that are being proposed to deal with cannabis legalization. And, as usual, to offer my opinion on why these changes are not appropriate or effective.
The biggest hint to date about what British Columbia’s drug-impaired driving scheme is going to look like is finally here. Solicitor General Mike Farnworth was quoted in The Province today as saying that a legislative scheme not unlike the Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme might soon become a reality.
It’s nice to know he’s creating a new prohibition scheme when the one that he criticized while in opposition remains unrepaired.
But what the article in The Province hints at is that roadside testing will be done by way of saliva testing. And this is inherently problematic.
Today, RoadSafetyBC made a major announcement regarding how it is going to start dealing with cases of street racing and stunt driving. You can read the announcement here.
At first blush, it sounds great for road safety. The Government makes it sound as though the current system allows only for fifteen-day prohibitions for street racing or stunt driving, and that these will now be replaced with longer prohibitions, between three and thirty six months, after this type of driving behaviour is observed. The problem with this announcement is that it sorely misrepresents the current state of affairs, and it misleads the public about why this action is being taken.
To understand this issue it’s necessary to understand the current system.
Vancouver Criminal Lawyer with a focus on impaired driving, cannabis legalization and related issues, and immediate roadside prohibition defence.