This week on Driving Law, Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko unpack a B.C. refusal case testing Saskatchewan’s groundbreaking “intent to fail” ruling, explore whether police can eavesdrop in ambulances, and break down a Nova Scotia decision about mandatory jail time for impaired causing bodily harm. Plus, the Ridiculous Driver of the Week involves a Tesla and the front doors of IKEA.
A recent B.C. Provincial Court decision has taken a closer look at what “refusal” really means under Canadian impaired driving law. Following Saskatchewan’s Emeruwa ruling, the judge found that the Crown must prove a driver intentionally failed to provide a breath sample — not just that they didn’t blow hard enough. While the accused was still convicted, the reasoning highlights ongoing uncertainty about how intent applies in refusal cases.
Kyla and Paul also discuss an Alberta Court of Appeal case allowing police to overhear medical conversations in ambulances. Despite recognizing that privacy interests exist, the court stopped short of calling it a Charter breach — a conclusion that raises questions about medical confidentiality and police overreach.
From there, the episode turns to Nova Scotia, where a judge found that a prior impaired conviction doesn’t automatically trigger mandatory jail for impaired causing bodily harm. The language gap in the Criminal Code leaves a narrow, but important, opening for conditional sentences in these cases.
And to close things off, the Ridiculous Driver of the Week goes to a Tesla owner who managed to drive straight into the Richmond IKEA — proving, once again, that no amount of technology can save a driver from bad judgment.
