criminal law

Episode 436: Supreme Court to Hear Impaired Driving Death Case and Mandatory Fines

The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear a major impaired-driving case that could reshape how “causing death” offences are applied. In Episode 436 of Driving Law, Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko explain why the decision matters.

…

Episode 436: Supreme Court to Hear Impaired Driving Death Case and Mandatory FinesRead More »

Episode 436: Supreme Court to Hear Impaired Driving Death Case and Mandatory Fines Read More »

Episode 435: Supreme Court Ends Mandatory Breath Test Challenge & Police Surveillance Concerns

The Supreme Court of Canada has declined to hear the Charter challenge to mandatory roadside breath testing, bringing a major legal battle to an end. In Episode 435 of Driving Law, Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko break down what happened — and what comes next.

…

Episode 435: Supreme Court Ends Mandatory Breath Test Challenge & Police Surveillance ConcernsRead More »

Episode 435: Supreme Court Ends Mandatory Breath Test Challenge & Police Surveillance Concerns Read More »

Your Right to Silence in Police Investigations

Woman in sunglasses sitting in a car, holding up her driver's license while a police officer in uniform writes a ticket outside her window.

If you remember one phrase when dealing with the police, it should be this: “lawyer told me not to talk to you.” That line is more than a meme or a slogan. It captures a core legal protection that exists to shield ordinary people from accidentally harming themselves during police investigations.

Understanding your right to silence can make the difference between protecting yourself and creating evidence the police did not already have.

…

Your Right to Silence in Police InvestigationsRead More »

Your Right to Silence in Police Investigations Read More »

Kyla Lee Wins the Clawbies Again: Best YouTube Series in 2025

In a crowded legal media landscape, genuinely useful content is hard to find. Content that is clear, engaging, and relevant to both lawyers and the public is even rarer. Kyla Lee’s videocast, Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t, continues to stand out — and has earned another Clawbies Award in 2025.

…

Kyla Lee Wins the Clawbies Again: Best YouTube Series in 2025Read More »

Kyla Lee Wins the Clawbies Again: Best YouTube Series in 2025 Read More »

Episode 432: Bill C-16, Court Delays, and a CVS Officer Crash

This week on Driving Law, Kyla and Paul examine Bill C-16, a sweeping federal criminal law bill that quietly rewrites court delay rules, evidence retention timelines, and sentencing discretion — with serious consequences for impaired driving cases.

…

Episode 432: Bill C-16, Court Delays, and a CVS Officer CrashRead More »

Episode 432: Bill C-16, Court Delays, and a CVS Officer Crash Read More »

The Supreme Court Rules on What the Crown Must (and Must Not) Prove in Impaired Driving Cases

On November 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) delivered its judgment in R. v. Larocque, 2025 SCC 36, a companion case to R. v. Rousselle, 2025 SCC 35. This ruling clarifies the Crown’s evidentiary burden when prosecuting the “80 and over” offence, focusing specifically on how much information about the alcohol standard used in breath testing must be proven at trial.

The case revolved around Stéphane Larocque, who was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint and subsequently charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) equal to or exceeding 80 mg percent. At trial, the Crown introduced certificates from the qualified technician and two analysts to satisfy the preconditions required to utilize the statutory presumption of accuracy in s. 320.31(1) of the Criminal Code.

The issue before the SCC was technical but highly significant: Must the Crown prove the specific numerical target value of the alcohol standard used during the system calibration check to benefit from the presumption of accuracy for breath sample analysis results?

…

The Supreme Court Rules on What the Crown Must (and Must Not) Prove in Impaired Driving CasesRead More »

The Supreme Court Rules on What the Crown Must (and Must Not) Prove in Impaired Driving Cases Read More »

Did the SCC Eliminate Impaired Driving Defence Technicalities?

Close-up of a police officer conducting a breathalyzer test on a driver to check for blood alcohol levels.

On November 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) settled a nationwide debate regarding breath alcohol testing evidence. In its decision, R. v. Rousselle, 2025 SCC 35, a companion case to R. v. Larocque, 2025 SCC 36, the Court confirmed that the Crown is not required to call an analyst to testify or file documents from the analyst in every impaired driving case to prove the reliability of the alcohol standard used in breath testing.

The central question was one of evidence: could the Crown rely solely on the certificate of the qualified technician, a police officer operating the approved instrument, to prove a precondition that the alcohol standard used was certified by an analyst?. The SCC answered a resounding yes.

…

Did the SCC Eliminate Impaired Driving Defence Technicalities?Read More »

Did the SCC Eliminate Impaired Driving Defence Technicalities? Read More »

Episode 430: Mandatory vs. Suspicion Demands, Uber Drivers, & Christmas Lights

This week on Driving Law, Kyla and Paul take on a deeply concerning Ontario ruling that blurs the line between lawful and unlawful ASD demands, raising major Charter implications. They also dig into a BC guilty plea decision affecting Uber drivers, Ontario’s proposal for child-support penalties, and a festive but illegal Ridiculous Driver of the Week.

…

Episode 430: Mandatory vs. Suspicion Demands, Uber Drivers, & Christmas LightsRead More »

Episode 430: Mandatory vs. Suspicion Demands, Uber Drivers, & Christmas Lights Read More »

Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: Volume 376

This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: Lottery Law Edition

I’d like to win a big lottery prize. Who wouldn’t? There have been two distillery owners who won big in Canadian lotteries, and I think I should be next. The odds aren’t good, however. But it appears the odds are good that with any winning ticket there will be some legal drama.

A winning ticket can bring out the best in people, although recent news stories about lottery wins suggest the opposite. Here are three recent cases that prove a lottery win may bring big legal headaches.

…

Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: Volume 376Read More »

Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: Volume 376 Read More »

Episode 428: Supreme Court’s “Goldson” Decision – Breath Tests, Due Process, and a Bus Heist

The Supreme Court of Canada handed down decisions this week that mark a dark day for fair trial rights in Canada. In the Goldson line of cases, the Court ruled that prosecutors don’t have to file both the qualified technician’s and the analyst’s certificates for breath-test calibration — a shortcut that keeps key evidence out of reach for the defence.

…

Episode 428: Supreme Court’s “Goldson” Decision – Breath Tests, Due Process, and a Bus HeistRead More »

Episode 428: Supreme Court’s “Goldson” Decision – Breath Tests, Due Process, and a Bus Heist Read More »

Scroll to Top
CALL ME NOW