Blog

Between the race to develop a marijuana “breathalyzer” and the legalization of marijuana in U.S. border states like Colorado and Washington, there has been a great deal of discussion about drug impaired driving law in British Columbia and Canada. Many groups such as MADD Canada and the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse have been putting pressure on government to establish “per se” limits for drugs in the body. But will this really deal with the problem of drug-impaired driving? And is drug-impaired driving really a problem in Canada?

If you’ve been following my blog or my firm‘s blog, you’ve probably read a little bit about fairness in DUI hearings in British Columbia. There are aspects of fairness that affect all levels of the Immediate Roadside Prohibition, from dealing with the police at the roadside, to obtaining disclosure, preparing your defence, presenting your arguments, and receiving your decision. But what about what happens after you receive your decision?

This is where another level of unfairness in the process comes into play.

This summer has been unbelievably hot in British Columbia, and as a consequence of the heat there have been an inordinate number of forest fires. The Government has already spent over $100 Million fighting these fires, with over 200 still burning in the province. It has been costly and devastating.

But some politicians have been using forest fires as an argument to justify taking your car. That’s right. The BC Government is currently considering whether they can impound your car because of forest fires. Now, if you’re a rational British Columbian like me, you’re probably wondering what the connection between forest fires and your vehicle is.

Let me tell you.

When you are pulled over and subject to an Immediate Roadside Prohibition investigation, you have the right to a second breathalyzer test at the roadside. This test is required to be conducted on a different device, and the lower of the two readings will prevail. The second test is sold to drivers by police as the mechanism by which they are entitled to challenge the results of the first test, and that they have nothing to lose by taking this. Well, that’s only sometimes true. The second breathalyzer test is often a double-edged sword.

When the British Columbia government introduced its new drinking and driving laws, it touted the penalties as swift and severe. It was, and still remains, the toughest drinking and driving law in Canada. Many people, including myself, were aghast at the idea that roadside justice was replacing a proper legal method of separating the innocent from the guilty that respected the presumption of innocence.

The first version of the legislation was found unconstitutional in part by the BC Supreme Court, and is currently under consideration by the Supreme Court of Canada. The second version was determined to be constitutionally valid. And the third version is slowly being regulated into existence. One of the elements of the law that the government and the courts have praised is its rapid response to the social problem of drinking and driving.

But, ironically, this is the biggest failing of the law.

Today the BC Government made an announcement in the middle of its public consultation process about the penalties for distracted driving. Their thinking is that drivers are not getting the message about distracted driving, and so the penalty must increase to stop the behaviour. One of the suggestions the Government is looking at implementing? License suspensions and vehicle impoundment. That’s right, the Government is currently seriously considering taking your car and your license away on the spot if you’re ticketed for using a cell phone while driving.

In May of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments in two cases on the BC Government’s Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme. I was fortunate to be granted leave to appeal the decision in the Wilson case, and presented my argument to the court first thing that morning. The room was packed with lawyers who have more experience at this level than me, who had been practicing for years, and for many of whom it was one of many trips they have already made in their careers.

There were two cases being heard that morning – the Wilson case and the Sivia/Goodwin case. The second case was about the constitutional challenge to the IRP laws, while my case pertained to whether an officer has to have reasonable grounds beyond just the reading on the ASD in order to issue the prohibition.

As of June 18, 2015 it’s official: the Federal Government has passed the Victims Bill of Rights and it has been made law by Royal Assent. While there are compelling reasons to ensure that victims in a criminal trial process are heard and had a voice, the manner in which it was achieved by Parliament is not something that I believe is effective or consistent with a fair, just, and free and democratic society. The Bill functions to eliminate the rights of those charged with an offence, in favor of adding rights to victims.

Because I’ve been an impaired driving lawyer for a few years, I have learned that it’s not wise to trust the headlines regarding impaired driving statistics. Particularly when it comes to anything reported or suggested by MADD Canada. They are, after all, a lobby group with a particular interest. They have a discernible bias in what they report and how they report it. To accept what they say at face value would be akin to accepting the conclusion that McDonald’s is healthy in a study funded by the restaurant chain.

Today I listened to a show on CKNW’s Simi Sara show regarding MADD Canada’s latest report. I wanted to write a short blog post about my thoughts on MADD Canada’s 2015 Provincial Impaired Driving Report.

Today we heard the first sentence to be given out in the Robert Dziekanski perjury trials. Constable Kwesi Millington and Corporal Monty Robinson were convicted of perjury, while their fellow officers Constable Bill Bentley and Constable Gerry Rundel were acquitted after trial. The Court sentenced Constable Millington to 30 months of jail time.

The sentence has surprised many, because it is a lengthy jail term for someone who previously had no criminal record or history of criminal behaviour. Many people have wondered why such a significant jail term was handed down in these circumstances, while arguably more serious offenders are given shorter jail sentences or even no jail.