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
Get every document.
In impaired driving cases in BC, the report to Crown Counsel narrative is not usually the only document that police generate. They also produce a 90-day license suspension report and a 24-hour prohibition report. If the vehicle is impounded, there is a separate report to the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles for the impoundment. There is sometimes a synopsis written the day of, before the full narrative is completed.
Knowing all the documents that are generated, there are often opportunities to find contradictions or inconsistencies in the police evidence. Certain symptoms may be added into reports later, after the fact, and additional information about delays or Charter issues may appear over time. The more the evidence changes, the more unreliable it may be. This creates strong opportunities for cross-examination and should not be overlooked.
2. IRP Decision of the Week
Prohibition Revoked:
Police pulled over a vehicle leaving the parking lot of a local pub. The driver admitted recent consumption of alcohol and had an odour of liquor on their breath. The police made a demand for an approved screening device test. The driver produced a fail result. A second test was then administered, also resulting in a fail reading.
When the police submitted the report to the superintendent, the officer first neglected to bring the documents before a commissioner for taking affidavits before signing it. He faxed in the report without a commissioner’s signature.
Realizing the error, a commissioner then signed the document and faxed in a subsequent copy. No supplemental report was completed and the issuing officer did not re-sign or re-swear the document.
Kyla Lee argued the superintendent must revoke the prohibition on the basis it was not properly sworn. A person must appear before a commissioner and both signatures must appear on the document for it to be properly sworn. Sending a signed copy without re-swearing or re-affirming the document does not cure the defect.
3. DUI Decision of the Week
In the case of R. v. Singer 2026 SCC 8, the court considered the implied licence to knock and approach in the context of a report of impaired driving.
Two RCMP officers were investigating an impaired driving complaint in a small Saskatchewan First Nations community. At around midnight, after about an hour of investigating, they located a truck matching the description parked in a residential driveway with its lights on and engine running. Unable to see anyone inside from the road, the officers stepped onto the driveway, approached the truck, and saw Mr. Singer sleeping or passed out in the driver’s seat. They knocked on the window for several minutes. When he did not respond, they opened the door, at which point they detected signs of impairment. He later failed a roadside test and was charged after refusing a further sample.
At trial, Mr. Singer challenged the police conduct under section 8 of the Charter. The trial judge convicted him. The Court of Appeal found a breach when police entered the driveway and excluded the evidence. The Crown appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in a majority decision, held that police had an implied licence to enter the driveway and approach the vehicle to communicate with the occupant. This principle, rooted in R. v. Evans, allows members of the public, including police, to approach a residence for legitimate purposes. The majority extended this to a vehicle in plain view on a driveway, finding that walking up and observing using ordinary senses was not a search.
However, the Court drew a clear line at opening the vehicle door. This exceeded the scope of the implied licence and constituted a search. The search was unreasonable and breached section 8.
Despite this, the evidence was admitted under the Grant analysis. The majority found the breach to be relatively minor, characterized as a reasonable misunderstanding of the law in a situation involving potential public safety risk. The privacy intrusion was considered moderate, and society’s interest in adjudicating serious impaired driving offences supported admission.
The dissent strongly disagreed, emphasizing that the implied licence is limited to communication and cannot be used as a tool for evidence gathering. The dissent also highlighted the broader context of policing in Indigenous communities and concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The matter was ultimately sent back for further determination on trial fairness.
4. Kyla’s Insight
Singer confirms that police investigating an impaired driving complaint may enter a residential driveway and approach a parked vehicle in plain view without a warrant. The act of walking up and knocking is not a search.
However, the decision also makes clear that the implied licence ends at the door. Opening it requires independent legal authority. For practitioners, this places significant importance on whether a safety search can be justified and whether the officer can articulate a subjective belief that it was necessary.
It is equally important to examine the officer’s purpose. If the intent was to gather evidence rather than communicate, that may take the conduct outside the scope of the implied licence. Careful cross-examination on what the officer intended to do, and what they expected to observe, can be critical.
For those concerned with the protection of private property rights, this decision presents challenges. The dissent, particularly its focus on purpose and its recognition of broader policing realities, provides a framework for future arguments as this area of law continues to develop.
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.
