Impaired Driving
Impaired driving is one of the most serious offences in Canada due to its potential for causing death, injury, and property damage. It is governed primarily under the Criminal Code, Sections 253–255, and has specific rules regarding blood alcohol content, drug impairment, and vehicle operation.
1. Definition and Legal Framework
Criminal Code Provisions
Section 253(1)(a): Operates a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs.
Section 253(1)(b): Blood alcohol concentration (BAC) over 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.
Section 254: Refusal to provide a breath or blood sample when demanded by police.
Section 255: Aggravating circumstances:
Bodily harm caused while impaired.
Death caused while impaired.
Key Elements
Operation of a Vehicle
Includes cars, trucks, boats, and some motorized vehicles.
Impairment
Can be established by physical signs (slurred speech, swerving, delayed reaction) or by BAC over legal limit.
Causation
For aggravated charges, the impaired operation must directly cause injury or death.
Penalties
First offence: minimum fines, possible imprisonment, driving prohibitions.
Repeat offences: mandatory jail time, longer driving bans.
Impaired driving causing death: life imprisonment, parole eligibility after 7 years.
Refusal to provide a sample carries similar penalties to impaired driving itself.
2. Case Law on Impaired Driving
Here are more than five significant Canadian cases illustrating how courts interpret and prosecute impaired driving:
1. R. v. Beatty, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 49
Facts:
Accused operated a car that collided with a pedestrian. BAC slightly above 80 mg/100 ml.
He claimed minimal impairment and no intent to drive dangerously.
Decision:
Supreme Court clarified:
“Care or control” of a vehicle can constitute an offence even if not actively driving.
Impairment is assessed based on whether the accused’s ability to operate the vehicle was significantly affected.
Importance:
Expanded interpretation of care or control, preventing circumvention of impaired driving laws.
2. R. v. Tataryn, 2014 ONCA 722
Facts:
Accused involved in a crash causing bodily harm. Blood alcohol content: 120 mg/100 ml.
Disputed whether BAC reflected actual impairment at the time of the accident.
Decision:
Court emphasized:
BAC is prima facie evidence of impairment, but courts can consider time elapsed, metabolism, and other factors.
Circumstantial evidence (driving behavior, witness testimony) is critical.
Importance:
Established relationship between BAC and impairment in court evaluation.
3. R. v. Perka, 2011 BCSC 1412
Facts:
Accused refused to provide a breath sample when demanded by police.
Claimed medical condition prevented safe breath test.
Decision:
Court convicted under s. 254(5).
Held that refusal without a valid excuse is treated as seriously as impaired driving itself.
Court may consider medical or technical issues as valid defenses.
Importance:
Reinforced mandatory compliance with testing, while allowing limited exceptions.
4. R. v. Duguay, 2003 SCC 50
Facts:
Accused involved in a single-vehicle accident causing death. BAC: 150 mg/100 ml.
Issue: Whether actions constituted criminal negligence causing death.
Decision:
Supreme Court held:
Driving with high BAC causing death can lead to impaired driving causing death charges under s. 255.
Focus on foreseeability and negligence, not just intent.
Importance:
Established causation principles for impaired driving resulting in bodily harm or death.
5. R. v. J.M., 2012 ONCA 607
Facts:
Youth charged under YCJA for impaired driving causing bodily harm.
BAC: 90 mg/100 ml.
Decision:
Court emphasized:
YCJA principles apply: rehabilitation, community-based sentencing where possible.
Custody may be used if risk to public safety is significant.
Importance:
Demonstrates application of youth-specific justice principles in impaired driving cases.
6. R. v. Curatolo, 2015 SCC 28
Facts:
Accused argued that police used improper roadside sobriety testing.
BAC and observational evidence were inconsistent.
Decision:
Supreme Court clarified:
Evidence from police must follow proper protocols for admissibility.
Procedural errors may reduce reliability but do not automatically dismiss charges.
Importance:
Reinforced importance of proper evidence collection in impaired driving prosecutions.
7. R. v. MacDonald, 2016 NSCA 52
Facts:
Accused caused collision while impaired by both alcohol and prescription drugs.
BAC: 80 mg/100 ml, plus positive drug test.
Decision:
Court held:
Combination of substances may enhance impairment.
Conviction can be based on cumulative effect of alcohol and drugs.
Importance:
Confirmed drug-impaired driving laws and interaction with alcohol impairment.
Summary of Key Principles from Case Law
| Principle | Case(s) | Key Point |
|---|---|---|
| Care or control | Beatty | Even having control of vehicle while impaired is an offence |
| BAC as evidence | Tataryn | BAC over 80 mg/100 ml is prima facie evidence of impairment |
| Refusal to comply | Perka | Refusal to provide sample treated as serious as impaired driving |
| Causation and death | Duguay | Criminal negligence or death caused by impaired driving leads to higher charges |
| Youth offenders | J.M. | YCJA principles apply, focus on rehabilitation and community safety |
| Evidence procedures | Curatolo | Proper testing and protocols critical for conviction |
| Alcohol + drugs | MacDonald | Cumulative impairment considered for conviction |
Key Takeaways
Impaired driving = serious offence with potential for death and injury.
Care or control of vehicle can trigger liability even if not actively driving.
BAC over 80 mg/100 ml is legally significant but can be challenged with context.
Refusing a test is treated as seriously as impairment itself.
Aggravated charges (bodily harm or death) involve causation and foreseeability.
Youth offenders are subject to YCJA principles.
Alcohol and drugs together increase legal culpability.
RELATED Blog
comments