Mr. Sahaluk's case involved a challenge to provincial legislation that provided for the mandatory roadside suspension of the driver’s licence of any person charged with an alcohol related driving offence under the Criminal Code, a suspension which continues in place until the disposition of that criminal charge. The Court declared those provisions to be of no force or effect, but the declaration of invalidity was stayed for one year:
Evidence tendered before the chambers judge, who found the legislation to be constitutionally sound, included statistics that about 20% of drivers who become subject to an administrative licence suspension are ultimately found not guilty of any alcohol related driving charge, yet were prohibited from driving for significant periods of time prior to trial. Further, evidence and logic suggest that some drivers may choose to plead guilty notwithstanding the availability of an arguable defence, because a guilty plea allows an accused to apply to drive with an ignition interlock device in a substantially shorter period of time than if his or her charge is resolved by trial. In other words, drivers may be induced to surrender their constitutional right to the presumption of innocence and the right to a trial, in the hopes of being granted permission to drive much earlier than if they waited to be acquitted at trial. Sahaluk v. Alberta, 2017 ABCA 153