Most British Columbia drivers know that if they are pulled over on suspicion of impaired driving, they can be asked to blow into a roadside screening device. Far fewer know that, in certain circumstances, the police can demand a sample of their blood.
A recent Mission RCMP investigation is a useful reminder that blood demands are real, they are used, and they carry significant legal consequences. But they are also among the most legally scrutinized tools in a Crown prosecutor’s impaired driving file.
What happened in Mission
In February 2026, Mission RCMP reported that a 22-year-old with a Novice (Class 7) driver’s licence crashed his vehicle into a house. Officers at the scene formed the opinion that he was impaired by alcohol, but he was unable to provide a breath sample at the hospital. An officer then issued a blood demand under the Criminal Code, and a blood sample was taken for analysis. A criminal impaired driving investigation is ongoing.
The facts are unfortunately familiar: a single-vehicle collision, a young driver, and a switch from breath to blood evidence when the usual route is not available. What makes this case worth talking about is the legal machinery that sits behind that switch.
Blood demands under the Criminal Code
Since the 2018 overhaul of Canada’s impaired driving laws, blood demands are governed by section 320.28(2) of the Criminal Code. An officer may demand a blood sample where:
- The officer has reasonable grounds to believe the driver has committed an impaired operation offence within the preceding three hours; and
- It is not practicable to obtain a breath sample, or the officer reasonably believes a breath sample would not be practicable due to their condition.
The sample must be taken by or under the direction of a qualified medical practitioner, typically an emergency room physician or nurse, who is satisfied that taking the sample will not endanger the driver’s life or health.
That sounds straightforward on paper. In practice, every one of those elements is a potential battleground.
Where blood demands get challenged
Blood evidence is powerful because a laboratory blood alcohol concentration (BAC) result is harder to dismiss than a roadside screening reading. But the procedural hurdles to get that result lawfully in front of a court are significant.
Reasonable grounds. The officer must be able to articulate, in specific and objective terms, why they believed the driver committed an impaired operation offence. A bald assertion of “signs of impairment” is not enough. Accident involvement, without more, does not create reasonable grounds.
Impracticability of breath. If breath was available, blood should not have been taken. Courts look closely at whether the officer genuinely explored breath testing before escalating to a blood demand, and whether the driver was given a fair opportunity to provide breath.
Medical supervision. The sample must be taken by or under the direction of a qualified medical practitioner who has certified that it is safe to do so. Paperwork matters here. A missing or incomplete certificate can create serious evidentiary problems for the Crown.
Charter section 8. A blood sample is one of the most intrusive searches the state can perform on a person. If any part of the demand was unlawful, the resulting evidence is subject to exclusion under section 24(2) of the Charter. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the heightened privacy interest in bodily samples, and trial judges take that interest seriously.
Chain of custody and analysis. From the moment the vial leaves the patient, every transfer, seal, temperature reading, and lab procedure must be documented. A gap in the chain of custody can reduce the weight of the evidence or, in some cases, render it inadmissible.
A second layer for novice drivers
The Mission driver’s Novice licence adds another wrinkle. Novice and Learner drivers in BC are subject to a zero blood alcohol restriction under the Motor Vehicle Act. Any detectable alcohol can trigger:
- An immediate 12-hour roadside prohibition;
- An automatic Graduated Licensing Program (GLP) prohibition, often for multiple months;
- A requirement to repeat part of the GLP; and
- ICBC Driver Risk Premium exposure.
Those consequences stack on top of any Criminal Code charge. In other words, a novice driver facing a blood-sample case can be looking at a criminal prosecution and a separate administrative licensing consequence that does not wait for the criminal case to resolve.
What BC drivers should take away
Three points are worth emphasizing for anyone who finds themselves in a situation like the Mission driver’s.
First, you do not have to talk your way out of it at the scene. The right to speak to a lawyer attaches when you are detained. Exercise it. Anything you say to officers or to medical staff can and often will end up in a police report.
Second, a blood result is not the end of the case. Blood evidence is rigorously regulated. The demand itself, the sampling procedure, the chain of custody, the laboratory analysis, and the underlying Charter compliance are all legitimate grounds for challenge. Many impaired driving cases involving blood have been successfully defended in BC.
Third, the administrative side moves fast. Administrative Driving Prohibitions and GLP prohibitions have strict review timelines, often just seven days from the date of service. Missing a deadline can cost you the right to review at all, regardless of how strong the criminal defence is.
If you are facing a blood demand case
If you or someone you know has been asked to provide a blood sample in an impaired driving investigation in the Lower Mainland or anywhere in BC, the best thing you can do is get experienced counsel involved early, ideally before the first court appearance and well before any administrative review deadlines pass.
Every blood demand file has a story. Our job as defence lawyers is to make sure the court hears all of it.
