Welcome to British Columbia’s only weekly DUI law update newsletter. This newsletter contains the most cutting-edge information, the newest case law, and helpful practice tips for DUI defence in BC.
Authored by Kyla Lee, BC’s Impaired Driving Update is released weekly on Thursdays.
What’s inside:
- Immediate Roadside Prohibition Review Tips!
- Impaired driving case updates and successes
- DUI Decision of the Week: an important DUI case precedent
- Kyla’s Insight
1. Immediate Roadside Prohibition Review Tip of the Week
Don’t abandon Charter arguments. Even if you do not have time in an oral hearing to make them, paper the record with additional written submissions. The BC Court of Appeal has confirmed that there can be a reduction in the weight of evidence obtained as a result of Charter breaches. As such, any meaningful violation is worth arguing. While you may not win, you also preserve the remedy for a judicial review where a court is more receptive to these issues.
2. Acquittal of the Week
Acquittal: In a serious trial for impaired driving causing death, driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg%, refusing to comply with breath demand, and dangerous operation causing death, defence counsel Kyla Lee requested extensive disclosure. The Crown Council did not respond to the request.
At trial, defence argued a breach of their client’s section 7 rights on the basis of the failure to disclose. It was discovered that critical pieces of evidence — the 911 calls and radio transmissions — had been destroyed due to the time that had passed.
After unsuccessfully asserting settlement privilege over the disclosure requests, the Crown was found to be in breach of Section 7. The remedy for the breach was a stay of the refusal charge followed by exclusion of evidence of the refusal and evidence of the 911 calls from authorizations that were later issued for search warrants for blood samples, hospital records and vehicle black box data.
After excising the impugned information from the Information to Obtain, they no longer supported issuance of the authorizations. The evidence obtained from them was excluded from trial. This left the Crown with no case on the Operating a Motor Vehicle Over 80 mg% or the Impaired Driving charges. The Crown proceeded on the Dangerous Driving, but absent any information about the manner of operation of the vehicle, which was necessarily derived from the black box data, there was an acquittal on the Dangerous Operation charge.
3. DUI Decision of the Week
In R. v. Jerlo, 2025 ONCJ 586, the Ontario Court of Justice dealt with a case involving an Approved Screening Device demand. The Crown conceded the demand was not based on objectively reasonable suspicion there was alcohol in Mr. Jerlo’s body.
Mr. Jerlo, who was self-represented at trial, argued the demand was not valid. The Crown argued that although the reasonable suspicion requirement was not met, the officer still had met the statutory pre-requisites for making a mandatory demand. As such, the Court could effectively “substitute”the MAS demand for the suspicion demand. The Crown argued the Criminal Code does not require a particular demand to be made, only that the authority for it existed.
The trial judge accepted the Crown’s argument. Mr. Jerlo was convicted.
4. Kyla’s Insight
Oof. This is a tough read. Not only because we are dealing with provisions of the Criminal Code that authorize warrantless searches, absent any grounds, and in violation of the right to counsel, but because the demand has also been recognized as serving a Section 10(a) function.
If the demand communicates to a person that they are being detained for a certain purpose, and then that purpose is not the reason for the detention after all, how can a court just overlook that element? Had Parliament wanted these demands to be interchangeable, would they not have just subsumed them into one provision?
I don’t like it and I think it flies in the face of the Charter section 1 justification for ASDs.
5. Resources
Want to know more about impaired driving and Immediate Roadside Prohibitions in BC? Here are some helpful resources:
The BC Motor Vehicle Act: https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_00
Criminal Code Offences Relating to Conveyances: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-46.html#h-121277
CanLII: https://www.canlii.org/
RoadSafetyBC: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/transportation/driving-and-cycling/roadsafetybc
6. Contact Us
The police have their experts. You should have yours.
Charged with impaired driving? Get the lawyer who literally wrote the book on it. Call Kyla Lee at Acumen Law today. Visit our contact form or call 604-685-8889 or email kyla@vancouvercriminallaw.com
7. Featured Firm
Featured Firm: Acumen Law Corporation
Based in Vancouver, Acumen Law Corporation is one of British Columbia’s leading criminal defence firms, recognized across Canada for its work in impaired driving law. The firm’s lawyers have successfully defended thousands of Immediate Roadside Prohibitions, criminal impaired charges, and driving suspensions.
Kyla Lee, a partner at Acumen Law, is widely regarded as a national authority on DUI law. She has authored multiple legal textbooks, teaches DUI defence across North America, and regularly appears in the media explaining developments in driving law.
Acumen Law is known for its deep understanding of both the law and the science behind impaired driving cases. The team approaches every file with meticulous preparation and a commitment to protecting the rights of drivers across BC.
