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
Don’t forget there is a case after the Charter issues.
As highlighted in a recent decision, defence focused heavily on alleged Charter breaches relating to the timing of the approved screening device demand and the right to counsel. The accused also faced dangerous operation charges.
After a successful no-evidence motion dismissed the dangerous driving charge, the remaining case relied on weak circumstantial evidence. This included hearsay about the manner of driving, the accused being found near the vehicle with keys in his pocket, and a warm hood. The court ultimately found there was no need to address the Charter issues because the Crown could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had been driving.
This serves as a reminder that not every case turns on exclusion of evidence. Sometimes the evidentiary foundation itself is insufficient. A strong defence requires attention not only to Charter issues but also to whether the Crown can meet its burden at all.
2. IRP Decision of the Week
Prohibition Revoked:
Police conducted an impaired driving investigation where the evidentiary foundation ultimately failed to establish the essential elements required to support the prohibition.
Despite the presence of circumstantial indicators, the available evidence did not sufficiently connect the individual to actual operation or care and control of the vehicle in a manner that could withstand scrutiny. The case underscores that even where police observations appear suggestive, the absence of clear, reliable, and direct evidence can be fatal to the prohibition.
3. DUI Decision of the Week
In R. v. Reid, 2026 ONSC 1342, the court considered whether time spent on bail with a driving prohibition could be credited toward a final sentencing prohibition.
Mr. Reid had spent nine months under a no-driving condition while awaiting sentencing. The sentencing judge initially granted credit for that time, reducing the length of the driving prohibition.
The Crown appealed, arguing that amendments to the Criminal Code, specifically section 320.24(5.1), require driving prohibitions to begin on the date they are imposed and run prospectively for the full statutory period. The court agreed, finding that Parliament used clear language to eliminate judicial discretion to credit pre-sentence driving restrictions.
As a result, time spent under bail conditions restricting driving cannot be applied toward the mandatory minimum prohibition period. However, because the one-year minimum had already elapsed by the time of appeal, no additional prohibition was imposed.
4. Kyla’s Insight
This decision reflects a significant shift in how driving prohibitions are treated. The statutory language now makes it clear that these prohibitions are strictly forward-looking, removing the flexibility that previously existed.
The result is harsh. Individuals who have already been restricted from driving for extended periods before sentencing receive no credit for that time. This creates a disconnect between the practical reality experienced by the accused and the formal sentence imposed.
The appropriate avenue for addressing this issue may be constitutional challenges to the mandatory minimum prohibition. While these have historically been unsuccessful, there are ongoing appellate cases that may provide further clarity.
This development may also affect how bail conditions are approached. If pre-sentence restrictions cannot be credited and would result in disproportionate consequences, there may be stronger arguments against imposing strict no-driving conditions at the bail stage.
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.
