This week on Driving Law, Kyla and Paul take on a deeply concerning Ontario ruling that blurs the line between lawful and unlawful ASD demands, raising major Charter implications. They also dig into a BC guilty plea decision affecting Uber drivers, Ontario’s proposal for child-support penalties, and a festive but illegal Ridiculous Driver of the Week.
In this episode, Kyla and Paul break down Giallo, an Ontario decision that treats two fundamentally different types of ASD demands as interchangeable. While the officer lacked reasonable suspicion — normally fatal to the validity of a suspicion-based demand — the court held that the demand stood because the officer could have made a mandatory one instead. Their discussion explores why this reasoning contradicts both legislative intent and Charter protections, and why BC courts have taken a different approach.
They also look at a BC Supreme Court ruling involving an Uber driver attempting to withdraw a guilty plea, arguing he wasn’t aware of how demerit points would affect his employment. The decision highlights the distinction between legally relevant consequences and the private policies of companies like Uber — a gap many drivers may not realize exists.
From there, they turn to Ontario’s newly proposed measure requiring impaired drivers who kill parents to pay child support. Kyla outlines several constitutional problems, from the punitive nature of the provision to its lack of connection to road safety, while Paul considers how such a law could reshape plea negotiations and sentencing.
The episode wraps with a seasonally appropriate Ridiculous Driver of the Week: a 21-year-old who wrapped his pickup truck in elaborate Christmas lights — and then doubled the speed limit. A reminder that festive spirit does not override the Motor Vehicle Act.
Stream Episode 430 for the full discussion.
