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:
- Impaired Driving Defence Tip
- IRP Decision of the Week
- DUI Decision of the Week
- Kyla’s Insight
1. Impaired Driving Defence Tip
Maintain a database. Practicing in this area means you’re dealing with an area that has an extremely extensive body of case law. As you’re preparing for individual cases and researching issues in your files, you’re going to come across cases that say things that are favourable but maybe don’t apply to your specific case at that moment.
Maintaining a database of decisions you read that are helpful, with a brief note about the issue, can help you quickly find them in the future. I once had a judge tell me, “If you look hard enough you’ll find a case that says anything.” In the area of impaired driving defence that certainly is true.
2. IRP Decision of the Week
Prohibition Revoked:
Police responded to a report of a collision involving two individuals who were in the same vehicle. The occupant of the passenger seat was investigated for impaired driving due to a series of unique circumstances.
When the police submitted the report to the superintendent, they neglected to print the narrative describing the events prior to bringing the documents before the commissioner for taking affidavits and swearing the report. Following the BC Supreme Court decision in Brandon v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), a case argued successfully by Kyla Lee, the superintendent revoked the prohibition on the basis it was not properly sworn.
3. DUI Decision of the Week
In the case of R. v. Ingabire 2026 ONCJ 102, the Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the impaired driving and over 80 mg% charges. The court found significant Charter violations by the police regarding the right to counsel and the administration of the ASD.
The police delayed the roadside screening demand to gather evidence for a criminal investigation rather than a regulatory one by asking incriminating and accusatory questions without having provided a caution about speaking to police or reading the right to counsel.
When she was taken back to the detachment and asked to provide the name of a lawyer, she chose a lawyer practicing in real estate law. The police, operating on the assumption that a real estate lawyer would not be in a position to advise her about criminal law matters, unilaterally decided she should speak to duty counsel instead.
The Crown argued that the police acted in good faith by steering her toward duty counsel, as they were concerned her chosen lawyer did not practice criminal law.
The court disagreed, finding that the conduct of the police in relation to the right to counsel amounted to an egregious breach of section 10(b). The officer spoke to the accused’s lawyer and told the lawyer he would call back but did not. The officer then actively misled the accused into speaking with duty counsel without telling her that her chosen lawyer was in fact available. This worked to completely undermine the right to counsel of choice.
On the impaired driving count the only evidence available was an odour of liquor and an accident. The court found the evidence of impairment to be too frail to justify a conviction for impaired driving, specifically indicating it did not meet the Stellato test for even slight impairment.
4. Kyla’s Insight
Wow it is hard to imagine a case where the police behave in a worse way in relation to the right to counsel. It is also pretty shocking that the trial Crown tried to allege that police actively lying to a lawyer and actively lying to an accused person was somehow good faith. The conduct is so far removed from what is expected that the case never should have been run in the first place.
This case probably will not be useful on section 10(b) because it is such a unique set of circumstances that it is unlikely to be repeated. However it may still be valuable in relation to the analysis around the incriminating questioning preceding the making of the ASD demand.
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.
