Changes to Canada's drunk driving laws will give police sweeping powers, warn legal experts

gb123

Well-Known Member
Opponents say proposed legislation 'begs' for a charter challenge


If Canada's new impaired driving laws are passed police could show up on your doorstep — up to two hours after you arrive home — to demand a breath or saliva sample.

It's one of the things that most concerns Calgary defence lawyer Dale Fedorchuk. who says the proposed law "begs" for a constitutional challenge.

Fedorchuk says officers would have the power to charge someone with impaired driving, even after they park their vehicle.


Calgary defence lawyer Dale Fedorchuk is concerned police would be able to show up at your front door up to two hours after you arrive home to demand a breath or saliva sample. (Bryan Labby/CBC)

"I don't understand the reasoning," said Fedorchuk. "Why do we have to be concerned about people who are already home?"

The Trudeau government introduced sweeping changes last month that include, among other measures, mandatory roadside saliva and breath samples and much harsher penalties for some offences that could result in up to ten years in prison.

The changes, which were announced the same day the federal government unveiled its bill to legalize marijuana, are stirring a lot of debate among local lawyers, legal experts and victims groups who are lining up to either praise or pan the legislation.

"I'm a little puzzled, actually," said Calgary law professor Lisa Silver.

Along with Fedorchuk, Silver also predicts the law will be challenged on constitutional grounds because police will no longer require "reasonable suspicion" before demanding a breath or saliva sample.

Officers can simply demand a test and drivers will have no choice, since refusing to provide a sample is a Criminal Code offence.

"There's going to be litigation around this for sure," says Silver.


University of Calgary law professor Lisa Silver says Canada's proposed impaired driving laws appear to contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and will face a constitutional challenge. (Bryan Labby/CBC )

Section eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states "everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

Silver says once a sample is unreasonably seized, a driver would essentially be "conscripted against themselves."

"What you've given those officers will be used against you to convict you, ultimately, in court," said Silver.

Shifting the burden of proof
Fedorchuk says the proposed law could shift the burden of proof onto an accused. As an example, he says someone who is approached by police at their residence would have to prove they consumed alcohol or drugs at home after they exited their vehicle and were not driving drunk.

Silver says the changes are likely meant to eliminate what's known as the bolus or intervening drinking defences.


Calgary Police Service Acting Sgt. Mudassir Rana pulls over a driver who failed a breath test and was subject to an immediate 72-hour licence suspension. The driver's vehicle was also impounded for three days. (Bryan Labby )

Currently, drivers can avoid fines or a criminal conviction by claiming they consumed alcohol just before or while driving, and thus were not over the legal limit at the time they were driving because the alcohol was not yet fully absorbed in their system.

They can claim it was only later, at the time of testing, that they reached an illegal blood-alcohol concentration.

Additionally, they can attempt to dash away from the scene of an accident and claim they consumed alcohol once home.

The government says it would close that loophole by changing the timeframe for blowing over the legal limit from "at the time of driving" to within two hours of driving.

It's a big problem
Silver says the issue may run contrary to the presumption of innocence.



Calgary police officers who conducted a recent checkstop on Mission Road in southwest Calgary appear supportive of the new changes — particularly the section that drops the requirement that officers must first have reasonable suspicion before demanding a breath test.


Sgt. Mudassir Rana supports the change to Canada's impaired driving laws, which include dropping the requirement officers must first have 'reasonable suspicion' before demanding a breath test. (Bryan Labby/CBC)

"To keep everybody safe it's a good idea they should also be checked randomly for any alcohol consumption or drugs," said Acting Sgt. Mudassir Rana. "So checking their sobriety should be a basic part, a condition of their license."

Calgary ranks 20th among Canadian metropolitan areas in the number of impaired driving charges laid according to a report from Statistics Canada.

Good first step
Mothers Against Drunk Driving says the proposed changes are a good first step. Karen Harrison says there's a link between tougher impaired driving laws and reduced fatalities and injuries in other jurisdictions.

Her brother, Tony Harrison, was killed by a repeat drunk driver in 2012 who was then sentenced to six years in prison.


Karen Harrison is the president of the Calgary chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. She supports the overhaul of Canada's impaired driving laws and says it could deter some people from driving drunk. (Bryan Labby/CBC)

Harrison isn't sure the new tougher laws still stop chronic, repeat offenders.

"It will deter some people from drinking and driving," she said.
 

greg nr

Well-Known Member
The ONLY reason MADD exists is to solicit contributions and compensate directors and senior executives.

Everything else is merely to divert attention.

Did some spokespeople suffer horribly at the hands of drunks? Sure. But MADD doesn't really care; they are just using tragedies for profit.
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
This hasn't got a hope in hell of passing. How in the hell are they going to prove I was driving at all much less my level of impairment two hours ago. I could have come home and slammed a 26'er in that two hours. I don't answer my door to pigs without warrants.
 

GroErr

Well-Known Member
Fuck JT, these yahoo cops and MADD. There is no way I'd provide a sample, and there should be no way this bill makes it to law as-is. If it does the lawyers will have a field day and I'd gladly volunteer to fight it. This piece of the proposed legislation is the most dangerous section affecting our basic rights in the whole bill. This is worse than prohibition, this is removing our basic rights and cannot be allowed to pass into law. Where are the opposition parties on this? They should be tearing the Libs apart. At least the mainstream media is waking up to it...
 

GrowRock

Well-Known Member
Fuck JT, these yahoo cops and MADD. There is no way I'd provide a sample, and there should be no way this bill makes it to law as-is. If it does the lawyers will have a field day and I'd gladly volunteer to fight it. This piece of the proposed legislation is the most dangerous section affecting our basic rights in the whole bill. This is worse than prohibition, this is removing our basic rights and cannot be allowed to pass into law. Where are the opposition parties on this? They should be tearing the Libs apart. At least the mainstream media is waking up to it...
Amen brother :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
 

gb123

Well-Known Member
There will be

NO PLAN FOR LEGALIZATION!!!!!

or they would have laid it out simply..and easily
.but they left it up to the ones who have not even looked into it yet lol

like handing the wheel to a 1 month old baby...
 
Top