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
A useful habit for any impaired driving practitioner is to look beyond your own jurisdiction when choosing CPD. Other provinces, countries, and most U.S. states often approach roadside testing, evidentiary rules, and Charter or constitutional issues from vastly different angles. Seeing how another court or tribunal analyzes the same problem can sharpen your own arguments and reveal assumptions in your local practice that might otherwise go unchallenged.
It also exposes you to strategies that have already been tested elsewhere. Techniques in cross-examining officers, attacking reliability of screening devices or breath or blood samples, or framing disclosure issues often develop unevenly across jurisdictions. Borrowing what works allows you to refine your approach without waiting for your own courts to catch up.
Over time, this broader perspective builds a more flexible and creative advocate. You are no longer limited to the habits of your local bar. You start to see patterns in how impaired driving law evolves, which makes it easier to anticipate where your own cases can go next and can give you new creative defences and angles to try that have not yet been litigated in Canada.
2. IRP Decision of the Week
The applicant was issued a 90-day immediate roadside prohibition for refusing to take an approved screening device test. After forming a suspicion, the officer made the approved screening device demand.
However, after making the demand the officer took no steps to administer the test for 17 minutes.
The applicant disputed the prohibition.
Kyla Lee successfully argued that the unexplained delay in administering the test rendered the prior demand invalid. The law requires immediate demand and immediate compliance, which is not possible if the officer does not take steps to administer the test for an extended period of time.
The adjudicator agreed. The conduct of the police fell short of the immediacy requirements. There was simply no basis in law on which the prohibition could be upheld.
The prohibition was revoked.
3. DUI Decision of the Week
The case of R. v. Fast 2026 BCSC 623 involves a Crown appeal of the acquittal on charges of impaired driving causing bodily harm. While the trial judge found Fast was indeed impaired, she acquitted him of the “causing bodily harm” element of the charge because the Crown failed to prove causation beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, he was convicted of the lesser offence of impaired operation simpliciter.
The legal analysis regarding causation centred on whether the driving, as opposed to the impairment, was a significant contributing factor to the accident.
On appeal, he Crown argued that the trial judge misapplied the test for causation under section 320.14(2) of the Criminal Code.
Under current law as amended in 2018, the Crown must prove that the driver caused bodily harm while operating a vehicle when impaired. It is no longer required to prove that the impairment itself was a contributing cause of the injury. To establish legal causation, the accused’s actions behind the wheel need not be the sole cause of the harm, but they must be a “significant contributing cause” meaning the contribution was more than minimal or insignificant.
However, and what was important to the outcome in this case, is that if a collision is found to be unavoidable, causation is not proven. This means if a reasonable, sober driver could not have avoided the accident in the same circumstances, the accused cannot be held legally responsible for the harm.
The trial judge’s acquittal was based on her finding that the accident was unavoidable. Her analysis relied heavily on dashcam footage from the victim’s vehicle. The judge found that the other driver began moving into the accused’s lane only one to two seconds before being rear-ended. The court concluded this short window gave the accused insufficient time to react or take evasive action. It was a sudden and unpredictable event.
The reviewing justice found that, although the trial judge’s reasons contained some ambiguity, her core finding was that the accident was unavoidable for any driver. This meant the Crown had not met the burden of proving causation.
Further the BCSC noted that even if the legal test had been better articulated, the finding that the accident was unavoidable defeated the Crown appeal because it precluded the possibility that the accused’s driving was a significant contributing cause of the bodily harm.
4. Kyla’s Insight
Physics trumps policy, even under modern, stricter impaired driving laws.
It is important to remember that merely proving impairment is not a blank cheque for the Crown to secure a conviction on bodily harm when the accident itself was unavoidable or not caused in any way by your client.
Despite the 2018 amendments to the Criminal Code removing the need to link the harm specifically to the impairment, this case confirms that legal causation remains a separate and necessary hurdle for the Crown to overcome. From a defence perspective, this case operates as a safeguard against punishing someone for injuries that a perfectly sober driver could not have prevented.
You’re going to want to make sure to canvass whether your client or the other vehicle had dash cam footage, and have that disclosed even if it requires an O’Connor application.
Legal causation is about establishing moral culpability and guarding those who are not morally blameworthy for a specific outcome from criminal punishment. While the accused was still convicted of impaired driving simpliciter, he was not responsible for the injuries because the other driver’s sudden and unpredictable lane change was the catalyst.
Also, a moment of appreciation for how the defence successfully framed the Crown’s characterization of the complainant’s driving as “cheeky” and “not great driving,” by making a lane change without a signal while approaching a red light.
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.
