Motor Vehicle Offences for Drugs and Alcohol (13:IX) - Revision history

Nate Russell at 18:24, 6 October 2026

2026-10-06T18:24:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:24, 6 October 2026
Line 149:		Line 149:
	Note that this presumption pertaining to the evidence contained in the breathalyser certificate does not offend s 11(d) of the ''Charter'' which protects the presumption of innocence: ''R v Bateman'', [1987] BCJ No 253; 46 MVR 155 (BC Co Ct).		Note that this presumption pertaining to the evidence contained in the breathalyser certificate does not offend s 11(d) of the ''Charter'' which protects the presumption of innocence: ''R v Bateman'', [1987] BCJ No 253; 46 MVR 155 (BC Co Ct).

	As stated above, a conviction requires the production of a valid certificate or ''~~vive~~ voce'' testimony at trial from a registered analyst or a breathalyser technician. However, the breathalyser technician or registered analyst must have the requisite qualifications.		As stated above, a conviction requires the production of a valid certificate or ''viva voce'' testimony at trial from a registered analyst or a breathalyser technician. However, the breathalyser technician or registered analyst must have the requisite qualifications.

	=== 2. Refusing to Provide a Sample ===		=== 2. Refusing to Provide a Sample ===

Nate Russell: /* 1. Impaired Driving/ Driving Over 80 */

2026-10-06T18:22:27Z

1. Impaired Driving/ Driving Over 80

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:22, 6 October 2026
Line 137:		Line 137:
	A peace officer may demand a breath or blood sample pursuant to ''Criminal Code'' s 320.27 (1) if the peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect the individual has alcohol or a drug in their body and they have operated a conveyance in the preceding 3 hours. Refusal to comply with a demand for a sample is a criminal offence (s 320.15(1)). Since Bill C-46 was passed in 2018, an officer no longer needs reasonable grounds to suspect an individual has drugs or alcohol in their body as long as the individual is operating a vehicle and the officer has an approved screening device in their possession (''Criminal Code'' s 320.17 (2)).		A peace officer may demand a breath or blood sample pursuant to ''Criminal Code'' s 320.27 (1) if the peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect the individual has alcohol or a drug in their body and they have operated a conveyance in the preceding 3 hours. Refusal to comply with a demand for a sample is a criminal offence (s 320.15(1)). Since Bill C-46 was passed in 2018, an officer no longer needs reasonable grounds to suspect an individual has drugs or alcohol in their body as long as the individual is operating a vehicle and the officer has an approved screening device in their possession (''Criminal Code'' s 320.17 (2)).

	For a charge under s 320.14, the Crown may prove a blood alcohol reading in excess of .08 by producing a valid certificate of analysis or providing ''~~vive~~ voce'' testimony at trial from a registered analyst or breathalyser technician about the blood alcohol concentration at the time the accused provided a breath sample.		For a charge under s 320.14, the Crown may prove a blood alcohol reading in excess of .08 by producing a valid certificate of analysis or providing ''viva voce'' testimony at trial from a registered analyst or breathalyser technician about the blood alcohol concentration at the time the accused provided a breath sample.

	Under section 320.31(1), the results from the analyses of breath samples are presumed to be accurate when:		Under section 320.31(1), the results from the analyses of breath samples are presumed to be accurate when:

Nate Russell at 18:21, 6 October 2026

2026-10-06T18:21:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:21, 6 October 2026
Line 99:		Line 99:
	The administrative decision (review decision) is final. If the application is unsuccessful, the only recourse is through a judicial review. The application for the judicial review must be filed within 6 months of receiving the decision, and is made by filing a Petition in Supreme Court. It is highly recommended that individuals seeking to challenge the administrative decision by way of judicial review be represented by a lawyer.		The administrative decision (review decision) is final. If the application is unsuccessful, the only recourse is through a judicial review. The application for the judicial review must be filed within 6 months of receiving the decision, and is made by filing a Petition in Supreme Court. It is highly recommended that individuals seeking to challenge the administrative decision by way of judicial review be represented by a lawyer.

	The IRP scheme is administrative and summary in nature, thus it is not subject to Jordan case law. In ''Lowe v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles)'', 2022 BCSC 392, the petition (for judicial review) was dismissed for unreasonable delay, as 56 months had elapsed between the time the petition was filed, and counsel served a notice of hearing. The petition was dismissed for unreasonable delay.		The IRP scheme is administrative and summary in nature, thus it is not subject to Jordan case law. In ''[https://canlii.ca/t/jn1h3 Lowe v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles)]'', 2022 BCSC 392, the petition (for judicial review) was dismissed for unreasonable delay, as 56 months had elapsed between the time the petition was filed, and counsel served a notice of hearing. The petition was dismissed for unreasonable delay.

	===4. 12 and 24-Hour Prohibitions===		===4. 12 and 24-Hour Prohibitions===

Nate Russell: 2026 update

2026-10-06T18:20:05Z

2026 update

LSLAP at 19:25, 13 October 2025

2025-10-13T19:25:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:25, 13 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~August 14, 2024~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= 30 July 2025}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}
	==A. Approved Screening Devices==		==A. Approved Screening Devices==

LSLAP: /* 1. Alcohol in Vehicles */

2025-09-22T07:10:08Z

1. Alcohol in Vehicles

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:10, 22 September 2025
Line 229:		Line 229:
	=== 1. Alcohol in Vehicles ===		=== 1. Alcohol in Vehicles ===

	Section 76 of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act sets out that a person must not drive or otherwise exercise control over the operation of a motor vehicle, whether or not it is in motion, while there is liquor in the person's possession or in the motor vehicle. However, the above does not apply:		Section 76 of the ''Liquor Control and Licensing Act'' sets out that a person must not drive or otherwise exercise control over the operation of a motor vehicle, whether or not it is in motion, while there is liquor in the person's possession or in the motor vehicle. However, the above does not apply:
	:a) If the liquor is in a container that is unbroken and has an unopened seal;		:a) If the liquor is in a container that is unbroken and has an unopened seal;
	:b) If the liquor is being transported, sold or served in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence, authorization or permit; or		:b) If the liquor is being transported, sold or served in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence, authorization or permit; or

LSLAP: /* 3. What Happens if You Lose the Hearing? */

2025-09-22T07:07:09Z

3. What Happens if You Lose the Hearing?

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:07, 22 September 2025
Line 99:		Line 99:
	The administrative decision (review decision) is final. If the application is unsuccessful, the only recourse is through a judicial review. The application for the judicial review must be filed within 6 months of receiving the decision, and is made by filing a Petition in Supreme Court. It is highly recommended that individuals seeking to challenge the administrative decision by way of judicial review be represented by a lawyer.		The administrative decision (review decision) is final. If the application is unsuccessful, the only recourse is through a judicial review. The application for the judicial review must be filed within 6 months of receiving the decision, and is made by filing a Petition in Supreme Court. It is highly recommended that individuals seeking to challenge the administrative decision by way of judicial review be represented by a lawyer.

	The IRP scheme is ~~quasi-criminal~~ and summary in nature, thus subject to Jordan ~~caselaw~~. In Lowe v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) 2022 the petition (for judicial review) was dismissed for unreasonable delay, as 56 months had elapsed between the time the petition was filed, and counsel served a notice of hearing. The petition was dismissed for unreasonable delay~~. R. V. Jordan, 2016 was a landmark case that established a significant shift from past practices of the criminal justice system. Unreasonable delay applies to the Motor Vehicle Act~~.		The IRP scheme is administrative and summary in nature, thus it is not subject to Jordan case law. In Lowe v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) 2022 the petition (for judicial review) was dismissed for unreasonable delay, as 56 months had elapsed between the time the petition was filed, and counsel served a notice of hearing. The petition was dismissed for unreasonable delay.

	===4. 12 and 24-Hour Prohibitions===		===4. 12 and 24-Hour Prohibitions===

LSLAP at 21:02, 21 August 2024

2024-08-21T21:02:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:02, 21 August 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~July 1~~, ~~2023~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= August 14, 2024}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}
	==A. Approved Screening Devices==		==A. Approved Screening Devices==

LSLAP at 23:06, 5 August 2024

2024-08-05T23:06:46Z

Clicklaw Editor: /* 1. Impaired Driving/ Driving Over 80 */

2023-08-15T17:52:40Z

1. Impaired Driving/ Driving Over 80

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:52, 15 August 2023
Line 142:		Line 142:
	Under section 320.31(1), the results from the analyses of breath samples are presumed to be accurate when:		Under section 320.31(1), the results from the analyses of breath samples are presumed to be accurate when:

	*a) The qualified technician, using an approved instrument, conducted a system blank test and a system calibration check before each sample was taken;		:a) The qualified technician, using an approved instrument, conducted a system blank test and a system calibration check before each sample was taken;
	*b) There was an interval of at least 15 minutes between the samples were taken; and		:b) There was an interval of at least 15 minutes between the samples were taken; and
	*c) The results of the analyses rounded down to the nearest multiple of 10mg, did not differ by more than 20mg of alcohol in 100mL of blood.		:c) The results of the analyses rounded down to the nearest multiple of 10mg, did not differ by more than 20mg of alcohol in 100mL of blood.

	The results of blood sample analyses are also presumed to be accurate unless there is evidence to the contrary (s 320.31 (2)).		The results of blood sample analyses are also presumed to be accurate unless there is evidence to the contrary (s 320.31 (2)).

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:20, 6 October 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= 30 July ~~2025~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= 30 July 2026}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}
	==A. Approved Screening Devices==		==A. Approved Screening Devices==

	Pursuant to s 320.27(1) of the ''Criminal Code'', a peace officer may demand a breath sample into an Approved Screening Device (ASD) from a driver if the officer reasonably suspects that there is alcohol in the driver’s body and they have operated a motor vehicle within the ~~proceeding~~ 3 hours. This is permitted for both drivers who are operating a motor vehicle or have care or control of it. An ASD is different than an approved instrument (colloquially known as a breathalyser) at the police station and it does not provide a numerical value for the readings of “warn” or “fail." If the police do not administer the ASD right away, they may not be able to use the results readings at trial.		Pursuant to s 320.27(1) of the ''Criminal Code'', a peace officer may demand a breath sample into an Approved Screening Device (ASD) from a driver if the officer reasonably suspects that there is alcohol in the driver’s body and they have operated a motor vehicle within the preceding 3 hours. This is permitted for both drivers who are operating a motor vehicle or have care or control of it. An ASD is different than an approved instrument (colloquially known as a breathalyser) at the police station and it does not provide a numerical value for the readings of “warn” or “fail." If the police do not administer the ASD right away, they may not be able to use the results readings at trial.

	Since the enactment of Bill C-46 in December 2018, police officers are also allowed to demand mandatory breath samples from a driver. This demand does not require the officer to have reasonable grounds to believe the driver is impaired—they can ask any driver to provide a mandatory sample. This type of demand only applies to roadside tests, not tests where the individual needs to be transported to the police station. The driver does not have a right to consult with counsel before providing a mandatory demand breath sample. There are some requirements for an officer to make a mandatory demand:		Since the enactment of Bill C-46 in December 2018, police officers are also allowed to demand mandatory breath samples from a driver. This demand does not require the officer to have reasonable grounds to believe the driver is impaired—they can ask any driver to provide a mandatory sample. This type of demand only applies to roadside tests, not tests where the individual needs to be transported to the police station. The driver does not have a right to consult with counsel before providing a mandatory demand breath sample. There are some requirements for an officer to make a mandatory demand:
Line 76:		Line 76:
	The applicant may attach any statements or evidence for the superintendent’s review. Please note that the filing of an application for review does not stay the driving prohibition. (''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 215.48(4))		The applicant may attach any statements or evidence for the superintendent’s review. Please note that the filing of an application for review does not stay the driving prohibition. (''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 215.48(4))

	To apply for a review of the Immediate Roadside Prohibition, the applicant must show proof of their identity, and provide a copy of the Notice of Driving Prohibition issued by the peace officer		To apply for a review of the Immediate Roadside Prohibition, the applicant must show proof of their identity, and provide a copy of the Notice of Driving Prohibition issued by the peace officer.

	There are two types of reviews: written and oral. The superintendent is not required to hold an oral hearing unless the driving prohibition is for 30 or 90 days, and the applicant requests an oral hearing at the time of filing the application for review and pays the prescribed oral hearing fees (''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 215.48(5)). In a written review, all documents are reviewed by the adjudicator at the appointed time and location, but no oral submissions will take place. In an oral review, the adjudicator will listen to why the driving prohibition ought to be revoked. It is highly recommended that full written submissions are also provided. If the oral hearing is missed, the hearing will automatically change to a written review system. The payment for a written review is $100 whereas the payment for an oral review is $200. The payment is non-refundable.		There are two types of reviews: written and oral. The superintendent is not required to hold an oral hearing unless the driving prohibition is for 30 or 90 days, and the applicant requests an oral hearing at the time of filing the application for review and pays the prescribed oral hearing fees (''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 215.48(5)). In a written review, all documents are reviewed by the adjudicator at the appointed time and location, but no oral submissions will take place. In an oral review, the adjudicator will listen to why the driving prohibition ought to be revoked. It is highly recommended that full written submissions are also provided. If the oral hearing is missed, the hearing will automatically change to a written review system. The payment for a written review is $100 whereas the payment for an oral review is $200. The payment is non-refundable.
Line 99:		Line 99:
	The administrative decision (review decision) is final. If the application is unsuccessful, the only recourse is through a judicial review. The application for the judicial review must be filed within 6 months of receiving the decision, and is made by filing a Petition in Supreme Court. It is highly recommended that individuals seeking to challenge the administrative decision by way of judicial review be represented by a lawyer.		The administrative decision (review decision) is final. If the application is unsuccessful, the only recourse is through a judicial review. The application for the judicial review must be filed within 6 months of receiving the decision, and is made by filing a Petition in Supreme Court. It is highly recommended that individuals seeking to challenge the administrative decision by way of judicial review be represented by a lawyer.

	The IRP scheme is administrative and summary in nature, thus it is not subject to Jordan case law. In Lowe v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) 2022 the petition (for judicial review) was dismissed for unreasonable delay, as 56 months had elapsed between the time the petition was filed, and counsel served a notice of hearing. The petition was dismissed for unreasonable delay.		The IRP scheme is administrative and summary in nature, thus it is not subject to Jordan case law. In ''Lowe v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles)'', 2022 BCSC 392, the petition (for judicial review) was dismissed for unreasonable delay, as 56 months had elapsed between the time the petition was filed, and counsel served a notice of hearing. The petition was dismissed for unreasonable delay.

	===4. 12 and 24-Hour Prohibitions===		===4. 12 and 24-Hour Prohibitions===
Line 153:		Line 153:
	=== 2. Refusing to Provide a Sample ===		=== 2. Refusing to Provide a Sample ===

	There are two ways that an officer can demand a sample~~: the~~ first is a roadside mandatory demand, which requires that the officer have an approved screening device in their possession and does not require them to suspect the driver of having alcohol or drugs in their system (s 320.27(2)). The purpose of this test is for screening. An individual does not have the right to counsel before providing a roadside breath sample. The second type of demand under s 320.27(1) is both subjective and objective. The peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect the driver has alcohol or a drug in their body and they operated a conveyance within the preceding 3 hours (based on ''Criminal Code'' s 320.27(1) and ''Charter'' s 8 (protection against unreasonable search and seizure) as interpreted in [http://canlii.ca/t/1frmf ''R. v. Bernshaw''], [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254.		There are two ways that an officer can demand a sample. The first is a roadside mandatory demand, which requires that the officer have an approved screening device in their possession and does not require them to suspect the driver of having alcohol or drugs in their system (s 320.27(2)). The purpose of this test is for screening. An individual does not have the right to counsel before providing a roadside breath sample.

	:'''NOTE:''' '''Providing a breath sample is not a voluntary procedure''': the peace officer demands the sample. The driver may refuse only if they have a “reasonable ~~excuse”~~.		The second type of demand under s 320.27(1) is both subjective and objective. The peace officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect the driver has alcohol or a drug in their body, and that they operated a conveyance within the preceding 3 hours (based on ''Criminal Code'' s 320.27(1) and ''Charter'' s 8 (protection against unreasonable search and seizure) as interpreted in [http://canlii.ca/t/1frmf ''R. v. Bernshaw''], [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254).

			:'''NOTE:''' '''Providing a breath sample is not a voluntary procedure;''' the peace officer demands the sample. The driver may refuse only if they have a “reasonable excuse.”

	In some cases, a reasonable excuse has been held to include the right to first consult with a lawyer in private before providing the sample. This only applies when the driver is taken to the police station or medical facility for testing (not to roadside breathalyzer tests/mandatory demands). Where an accused chooses to exercise the right to retain counsel, the police officer must provide them with a reasonable opportunity to retain and instruct counsel, like offering them a phone to use: ''[http://canlii.ca/t/22kmf R v Elgie]'' (1987), 48 MVR 103 (BCCA); ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1ftmx R v Manninen]'', [1987] 1 SCR 1233. The officer must refrain from attempting to elicit evidence until the detainee has been offered this opportunity. If the police officer does not inform the driver of their right to retain and instruct counsel (''Charter'' s 10(b)), the breath or blood sample, if given, may be excluded from evidence if admitting it “would bring the administration of justice into disrepute” (''Charter'' s 24(2)).		In some cases, a reasonable excuse has been held to include the right to first consult with a lawyer in private before providing the sample. This only applies when the driver is taken to the police station or medical facility for testing (not to roadside breathalyzer tests/mandatory demands). Where an accused chooses to exercise the right to retain counsel, the police officer must provide them with a reasonable opportunity to retain and instruct counsel, like offering them a phone to use: ''[http://canlii.ca/t/22kmf R v Elgie]'' (1987), 48 MVR 103 (BCCA); ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1ftmx R v Manninen]'', [1987] 1 SCR 1233. The officer must refrain from attempting to elicit evidence until the detainee has been offered this opportunity. If the police officer does not inform the driver of their right to retain and instruct counsel (''Charter'' s 10(b)), the breath or blood sample, if given, may be excluded from evidence if admitting it “would bring the administration of justice into disrepute” (''Charter'' s 24(2)).
Line 238:		Line 240:
	=== 2. Cannabis in Vehicles ===		=== 2. Cannabis in Vehicles ===

	Section 65 of the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act sets out that cannabis cannot be consumed while a vehicle or boat is being operated. Neither the driver nor passenger can ~~consumer~~ cannabis whether the vehicle is in motion or not.		Section 65 of the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act sets out that cannabis cannot be consumed while a vehicle or boat is being operated. Neither the driver nor passenger can consume cannabis, whether the vehicle is in motion or not.

	* Consuming cannabis while operating a vehicle or boat can result in a ticket of $575;		* Consuming cannabis while operating a vehicle or boat can result in a ticket of $575;

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:06, 5 August 2024
Line 3:		Line 3:
	==A. Approved Screening Devices==		==A. Approved Screening Devices==

	Pursuant to s 320.27(1) of the ''Criminal Code'', a peace officer may demand a breath sample into an Approved Screening Device (ASD) from a driver if the officer reasonably suspects that there is alcohol in the driver’s body and they have operated a motor vehicle within the ~~preceding~~ 3 hours. This is permitted for both drivers who are operating a motor vehicle or have care or control of it. An ASD is different than a breathalyser ~~device~~ at the police station and it does not provide a numerical value for the readings of “warn” or ~~“fail”~~. If the police do not administer the ASD right away, they may not be able to use the ~~result's~~ readings at trial.		Pursuant to s 320.27(1) of the ''Criminal Code'', a peace officer may demand a breath sample into an Approved Screening Device (ASD) from a driver if the officer reasonably suspects that there is alcohol in the driver’s body and they have operated a motor vehicle within the proceeding 3 hours. This is permitted for both drivers who are operating a motor vehicle or have care or control of it. An ASD is different than an approved instrument (colloquially known as a breathalyser) at the police station and it does not provide a numerical value for the readings of “warn” or “fail." If the police do not administer the ASD right away, they may not be able to use the results readings at trial.

			Since the enactment of Bill C-46 in December 2018, police officers are also allowed to demand mandatory breath samples from a driver. This demand does not require the officer to have reasonable grounds to believe the driver is impaired—they can ask any driver to provide a mandatory sample. This type of demand only applies to roadside tests, not tests where the individual needs to be transported to the police station. The driver does not have a right to consult with counsel before providing a mandatory demand breath sample. There are some requirements for an officer to make a mandatory demand:

	Since the enactment of Bill C-46 in December 2018, a police officer is also allowed to demand a mandatory breath sample from a driver at any time. This demand does not require the officer to have reasonable grounds to believe the driver is impaired—they can ask any driver to provide a mandatory sample. This type of demand only applies to roadside tests, not tests where the individual needs to be transported to the police station. The driver does not have a right to consult with counsel before providing a mandatory demand breath sample. There are some requirements for an officer to make a mandatory demand:
	:a) The officer must have an ASD in their possession when they ask the driver to provide the sample; and		:a) The officer must have an ASD in their possession when they ask the driver to provide the sample; and

	:b) The officer must ask for the sample when the driver is driving or in care and control of a motor vehicle (they can pull a driver over and ask for a sample, but they cannot make a mandatory demand after the driver stops driving, like after they get home).		:b) The officer must ask for the sample when the driver is driving or in care and control of a motor vehicle (they can pull a driver over and ask for a sample, but they cannot make a mandatory demand after the driver stops driving, like after they get home).

	Before requiring the driver to provide a roadside breath sample into an ASD, the peace officer does not have to inform the driver of their ''Charter'' right, under s 10(b), to consult a lawyer. At this time, the driver does not have the right to speak to a lawyer before deciding whether to blow or refuse: the driver must decide right away. If the driver refuses, they will likely be issued a refusal to provide a breath sample under s 215.41(4) of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'' or under s 320.15(1) of the ''Criminal Code'' or an Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP).		Before requiring the driver to provide a roadside breath sample into an ASD, the peace officer does not have to inform the driver of their Charter right, under s 10(b), to consult a lawyer. At this time, the driver does not have the right to speak to a lawyer before deciding whether to blow or refuse: the driver must decide right away. If the driver refuses, they will likely be issued a refusal to provide a breath sample under s 215.41(4) of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'' or under s 320.15(1) of the ''Criminal Code'' or an Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP).

	The ASD tests for alcohol in the body and it will show a numerical value for a blood alcohol content (“BAC”) under 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood (.05), “warn,” or “fail.” It shows a ~~warn~~ for blood-alcohol levels between 50 and 79 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood (.05), and a ~~fail~~ for levels of not less than 80 milligrams. No numerical values are given for a “warn” or a “fail” and it is impossible to determine the actual BAC of the driver.		The ASD tests for alcohol in the body and it will show a numerical value for a blood alcohol content (“BAC”) under 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood (.05), “warn,” or “fail.” It shows a “warn” for blood-alcohol levels between 50 and 79 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood (.05), and a “fail” for levels of not less than 80 milligrams. No numerical values are given for a “warn” or a “fail” and it is impossible to determine the actual BAC of the driver.

	In contrast, ~~a breathalyser machine~~ measures alcohol in the breath to see if the driver’s blood alcohol concentration is over the legal limit of .08. It is more accurate than the ASD and must be operated by a qualified technician. In practice, the ~~breathalyser~~ is no longer used, and the police rely solely on the ASD to form the basis of issuing the driving prohibition.		In contrast, an approved instrument measures alcohol in the breath to see if the driver’s blood alcohol concentration is over the legal limit of .08. It is more accurate than the ASD and must be operated by a qualified technician. In practice, the approved instrument is no longer used, and the police rely solely on the ASD to form the basis of issuing the driving prohibition. The exception to this is in criminal cases, where the ASD cannot be relied upon for prosecution or proof of any level of blood alcohol content.

	In summary, if the police demand a roadside breath sample, the driver must comply with the breath demand into the ASD. The driver is legally compelled to provide a breath sample unless there is a reasonable excuse not to do so. Refusing without a reasonable excuse constitutes a separate offence.		In summary, if the police demand a roadside breath sample, the driver must comply with the breath demand into the ASD. The driver is legally compelled to provide a breath sample unless there is a reasonable excuse not to do so. Refusing without a reasonable excuse constitutes a separate offence.
Line 20:		Line 21:
	== B. Provincial Roadside Driving Prohibitions==		== B. Provincial Roadside Driving Prohibitions==

	Under the ''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 215.41, an immediate roadside prohibition will be served for driving or being in the care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol reading in excess of 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood (.05). Care or control of a vehicle means occupying the driver’s seat with access to the ignition key, even if the vehicle is parked.		Under the Motor Vehicle Act s 215.4, an immediate roadside prohibition will be served for driving or being in the care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol reading in excess of 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood (.05). Care or control of a vehicle means occupying the driver’s seat with access to the ignition key, even if the vehicle is parked.

	The consequence depends on a number of circumstances, including a driver’s prior history of prohibitions. For clarity, these consequences are listed below. Beyond the penalties noted below, receiving multiple penalties, or just one 90-day driving prohibition or ''Criminal Code'' penalty, can result in referral to the Responsible Driving Program (RDP), or the Ignition Interlock Program (IIP). The RDP is a course taken over 8 or 16 hours, whereas the IIP requires the installation of an interlock device in the driver’s vehicle. For more information, consult the [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/transportation/driving-and-cycling/roadsafetybc/high-risk-driver Road Safety BC website].		The consequence depends on a number of circumstances, including a driver’s prior history of prohibitions. For clarity, these consequences are listed below. Beyond the penalties noted below, receiving multiple penalties, or just one 90-day driving prohibition or Criminal Code penalty, can result in referral to the Responsible Driving Program (RDP), or the Ignition Interlock Program (IIP). The RDP is a course taken over 8 or 16 hours, whereas the IIP requires the installation of an interlock device in the driver’s vehicle. For more information, consult the RoadSafetyBC website at [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/transportation/driving-and-cycling/roadsafetybc/high-risk-driver Road Safety BC website].

	===1. Immediate Roadside Prohibitions===		===1. Immediate Roadside Prohibitions===
Line 116:		Line 117:
	==C. Drug Offences==		==C. Drug Offences==

	~~The BC government has passed legislation amending the ''MVA'' which received royal assent on May 17, 2018, and has come into force by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.~~		Section 25(10.101) allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council to impose a condition on driver’s licenses that those who hold the license must not operate a motor vehicle while having a prescribed drug in their body.

	~~The new legislation includes a number of amendments.~~ Section 25(10.101) allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council to impose a condition on driver’s licenses that those who hold the license must not operate a motor vehicle while having a prescribed drug in their body.

	Section 90.3(2.1) allows a peace officer to demand a sample of a bodily substance from a driver who holds a driver's ~~licence~~ on which a condition is imposed under section 25 (10.101) for analysis by means of approved drug screening equipment. If the analysis indicates the driver has a prescribed drug in their body, the peace officer may serve them with a notice of license suspension and request the driver to surrender their license. Section 90.3(3) ~~allows~~ the peace officer to apply the same consequence to a driver who declines to provide such a sample.		Section 90.3(2.1) allows a peace officer to demand a sample of a bodily substance from a driver who holds a driver's license on which a condition is imposed under section 25 (10.101) for analysis by means of approved drug screening equipment. If the analysis indicates the driver has a prescribed drug in their body, the peace officer may serve them with a notice of license suspension and request the driver to surrender their license. Section 90.3(3) allow the peace officer to apply the same consequence to a driver who declines to provide such a sample.

	Similar amendments alter much of the ''MVA'' regulations for driving with alcohol in your system so that driving with a prescribed drug in your system can result in the same penalties. There is no blood drug concentration specified yet. It will be possible for a combination of drugs and alcohol to trigger penalties even if the blood concentration of each substance is less than the legal limit (section 94.1).		Similar amendments alter much of the ''MVA'' regulations for driving with alcohol in your system so that driving with a prescribed drug in your system can result in the same penalties. There is no blood drug concentration specified yet. It will be possible for a combination of drugs and alcohol to trigger penalties even if the blood concentration of each substance is less than the legal limit (section 94.1).

	==D. Federal Alcohol Offences==		==D. Federal Alcohol Offences==