MANDATORY ALCOHOL SCREENING IS CONSTITUTIONAL

In R. v. Morrison, 2020 SKPC 28, a Provincial Court Judge has found that the Mandatory Alcohol Screening provisions, introduced in 2018, are constitutional.  One paragraph of the 226 paragraph judgment reads:

Previous attempts or strategies to detect alcohol in a driver such as observation for signs of impairment like slurred speech or bloodshot eyes, smell of alcohol, questioning of a driver about his alcohol consumption and field sobriety tests have all had varying degrees of success but also of failure.  And since driving is not an inherent right and is subject to extensive regulations to protect life and property, and since I find that there are no obvious or apparent less restrictive schemes that the government could employ, I find that the Crown has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the legislation impairs the accused’s rights in a minimal way.

REVIEW OF OLDER LEGISLATION

The review done by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal in the case below may come in useful if you are still dealing with a 2018 offence date case:

Richard v. R., 2020 NBCA 43

ACQUITTAL - VEHICLE AS A WEAPON CASE

Mr. Douglas was charged with six driving offences.  He disputed that he had used his vehicle as a weapon during this evade police and dangerous driving case. And he disputed the bodily harm element as well (main details are at R. v. Douglas, 2020 SKQB 57). He was acquitted of assault with a weapon, but was convicted of evade causing bodily harm:

I am unable to find therein proof that Mr. Douglas intended to use his vehicle as a weapon. The actions as recorded in the video record are consistent with collisions that were the result of efforts to evade the police while travelling at excessive speeds in a vehicle that was damaged and had control problems. The evidence establishes clearly that Cst. Bear did suffer bodily harm. Medical evidence is not necessary to prove bodily harm. The fact of bodily harm was proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence of Cst. Bear himself. R. v. Douglas, 2020 SKQB 155

IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE REVIEWED

The observations of an off-duty police officer assisted the identification evidence in Mr. Griner's case. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld his conviction:

Mr. Griner was in a vehicle that was observed being driven in an erratic manner and which was ultimately involved in a collision. Even though an off-duty police officer identified Mr. Griner as the driver and Mr. Griner admitted to another officer that he was the driver, Mr. Griner took the position that he was only a passenger in the vehicle. Mr. Griner was convicted in the Ontario Court of Justice of one count of care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired. R. v. Griner, 2020 ONCA 371

TOXICOLOGY EXPERT CASE

A conviction for impaired causing bodily harm was upheld and in doing so the Manitoba Court of Appeal reviewed some of the 2018 amendments to the Criminal Code, and also quoted this from the trial:

Nothing improper occurred in this trial as the toxicology expert was unshaken in her testimony as to an extrapolation of the accused’s blood alcohol level at the time of the crash and that “a hundred percent of the population is intoxicated at a concentration of a hundred milligrams percent.” R. v. Courchene, 2020 MBCA 68