This week, we examine a troubling decision upholding THC driving laws that may capture drivers who aren’t actually impaired.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld Canada’s THC impaired driving laws, despite ongoing concerns that blood THC levels do not correlate with impairment. The decision effectively accepts that some individuals who are not impaired may still be convicted, framing it as a necessary trade-off to manage public safety risks.
The discussion highlights a broader shift in legal reasoning, where risk-based enforcement is increasingly prioritized over traditional principles that once favoured protecting the innocent. This raises important questions about the future role of the Charter and whether criminal law is moving away from requiring true moral fault.
Later in the episode, Kyla speaks with U.S. personal injury lawyer Charles Sanders about the stark differences between Canadian and American systems, including the impact of no-fault insurance and the role of large jury awards. They also discuss proposed legislation in California that could significantly limit plaintiffs’ rights.
Stream Episode 449 for the full discussion.
