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
There is nothing wrong with pitting your witnesses against each other in cross-examination. If there’s something that one witness says that you know another witness will readily contradict, it is not only wise but often necessary for you to confirm the contradictory evidence from the other witness even if it doesn’t come out in direct. You can also set up through a witness a contrary version of events to anticipated evidence if you know something either they’re factually wrong or wrong in terms of explanation of procedure. For example, having one police witness agree to certain steps that must be taken before obtaining a sample, even though they weren’t the one conducting the test, can be used to demonstrate the other offer did not follow that procedure correctly. Try not to think of witnesses as individual silos but as people who are pawns that can be played and traded off against one another to achieve the best result for your client.
2. IRP of the Week
The applicant was issued a 90-day immediate roadside prohibition for failing two breath tests. He was observed leaving a licensed liquor establishment and pulled over to check his sobriety. Prior to being pulled over, the applicant had consumed three drinks over a one-hour time span. The applicant disputed the prohibition. Acumen Law successfully argued that the applicant was not over the limit notwithstanding the test results. The applicant provided detailed evidence about his alcohol consumption, corroborated by numerous sources, as well as other external evidence that corroborated other details in his report. The overwhelming amount of corroborative evidence, coupled with the detailed affidavit evidence of the applicant, mitigated the fact that the applicant had made an inaccurate statement to the officer in relation to the timing of when he finished his last sip of alcohol. The adjudicator accepted that, based on his alcohol consumption pattern, he would not have exceeded 80 mg of alcohol and 100 mL of blood at the time of the tests. The prohibition was revoked.
3. DUI Decision of the Week
The case of R. v. Greenwood 2026 YKTC 16 was decided on the issue of “overholding.” This is a Section 9 Charter breach whereby an individual is detained by police longer than is legally necessary following the conclusion of an impaired driving investigation. While the court found that the initial decision to detain Mr. Greenwood for his own safety was lawful given his high level of intoxication and the lack of a sober adult to care for him, his continued detention became arbitrary and violated Section 9 of the Charter. The RCMP placed him on a Hold For Investigation status at the Whitehorse Correctional Centre, which meant only an officer could authorize his release. Despite being lodged at 4:00 a.m., the RCMP did not check on his sobriety or attempt to release him for nearly six hours, failing their obligation under the Criminal Code to release him as soon as practicable. This detention was deemed arbitrary because it was characterized by a complete lack of active monitoring or established procedure to ensure the least possible restriction on liberty. The court highlighted that this is a systemic issue in the Yukon, as the RCMP had been judicially warned about similar overholding violations in at least four cases since 2019. Despite these prior admonitions, the RCMP failed to implement a policy or communication system between correctional officers and the police to track a detainee’s sobriety. This institutional inaction transformed what began as a legitimate safety-based detention into a negligent violation of Charter rights. The court excluded the breathalyzer evidence under Section 24(2) of the Charter, even though there was no causal connection between the breach and the evidence, as the samples were taken hours before the overholding began. Drawing on the Grant and Pino frameworks, the judge reasoned that a Charter right would be hollow if no meaningful remedy were available for its violation. Because the breach resulted from a persistent systemic failure that the RCMP had repeatedly failed to correct despite numerous judicial admonishments, the court determined that the seriousness of the state conduct outweighed the public interest in adjudicating the case on its merits. To protect the long-term reputation of the administration of justice and address the ongoing negligence of the state, the court excluded all evidence obtained after Mr. Greenwood’s arrival at the detachment, effectively ending the prosecution.
4. Kyla’s Insight
What a great case that demonstrates the ways in which samples can be excluded even though they weren’t obtained directly in violation of the Charter. There are definitely lessons to be learned from this case, including the need to come prepared with other judgments where similar breaches have occurred and the judiciary has made comments about the impropriety of those breaches, particularly where they relate to policy-based or systemic decisions. It also shows that counsel shouldn’t just abandon a Charter application because there doesn’t appear to be a clear connection between the evidence obtained and the nature of the breach. In rendering its decision, the court in this case pointed to the fact that the officer had relied on the breath sample results as part of the justification for the initial detention of Mr. Greenwood after the breath sampling was completed and found that the connection between the breath sample results and the decision to lodge him in cells in the first place was sufficiently related so as to render the results capable of exclusion.
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.
