Tyna Mason

These joined constitutional appeals challenged British Columbia’s automatic roadside driving prohibition regime for alcohol-related roadside screening results.

The Court held the scheme was within provincial jurisdiction over licensing and highway safety and did not create an offence engaging section 11(d).

The Court also held that roadside breath demands under the scheme engaged section 8 and that the former fail branch was unreasonable because serious immediate consequences were imposed without meaningful review of test reliability.

The section 8 breach for the fail branch was not justified under section 1.

Both appeals were dismissed, with partial dissent on section 8.

These joined constitutional appeals challenged British Columbia’s automatic roadside driving prohibition regime for alcohol-related roadside screening results.

The Court held the scheme was within provincial jurisdiction over licensing and highway safety and did not create an offence engaging section 11(d).

The Court also held that roadside breath demands under the scheme engaged section 8 and that the former fail branch was unreasonable because serious immediate consequences were imposed without meaningful review of test reliability.

The section 8 breach for the fail branch was not justified under section 1.

Both appeals were dismissed, with partial dissent on section 8.

The appellant challenged a roadside driving prohibition imposed under a provincial automatic roadside prohibition regime, arguing that a screening-device result could not alone establish reasonable grounds to believe driving ability was affected by alcohol.

The Court held that the governing provision was unambiguous and that an officer may rely on a valid screening-device result without separate confirmatory evidence, provided the officer honestly accepts the result’s reliability.

It rejected the submission that constitutional values could be used to manufacture ambiguity where the statutory text, context, and objectives point to one reading.

The Court further confirmed that the provincial regulatory regime is independent from the federal criminal regime, even though it is triggered by a roadside demand under criminal legislation.

The appeal was dismissed and the prohibition upheld.