Welcome to Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!
In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation explores a case out of Saskatchewan that challenged the constitutionality of mandatory alcohol screening. After being required to provide a breath sample without any suspicion of impairment, the accused argued that this random breath testing violated Charter rights. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal was split on the decision, with one judge finding the law unconstitutional. Despite the national impact of mandatory screening, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the case.
Key Points Discussed
– Mandatory alcohol screening became law in 2018, allowing police to demand breath samples without any suspicion
– The accused in this case challenged the law as unconstitutional
– The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal split: two judges upheld the law under section 1 of the Charter, one dissented
– The split decision and national implications made this a strong candidate for Supreme Court review
– The Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal
Why This Case Matters
Random breath testing raises serious concerns about privacy, arbitrary detention, and the erosion of constitutional protections. While the goal of public safety is important, so are the legal rights of individuals—especially when police are given authority to stop, detain, and test people without grounds.
The failure to hear this case means Canadians are left without definitive guidance from the Supreme Court on how far these powers can go, or where the line should be drawn.
Missed Opportunity for a National Standard
– No clear ruling from the top court means provinces may interpret these powers differently
– Future challenges may be discouraged because the door appears closed
– The Court missed the chance to reconcile concerns about overreach with legitimate public safety goals
Need for Clarity and Accountability
Charter rights exist to protect individuals even when public opinion may favour enforcement-heavy approaches. Without guidance from the Supreme Court, governments may feel emboldened to further expand enforcement powers under the banner of safety—without sufficient judicial oversight.
Topics Covered
– Section 8 (search and seizure) and Section 9 (arbitrary detention) of the Charter
– Section 1 justifications and the Oakes test
– Random breath testing and constitutional limits
– Public safety vs individual rights
– Impact of denial of leave on future challengesPost navigation
