Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

Part Of B.C.'s Drunk-Driving Law Violates Charter, Judge Rules

1K views 4 replies 4 participants last post by  eMacMan 
#1 ·
With Alberta on the verge of passing a similar law, what effect might the ruling have?

A B.C. Supreme Court judge has ruled that part of the province's tough drinking and driving law is unconstitutional, while upholding the bulk of the legislation.

Lawyers had argued that B.C.'s automatic roadside driving prohibition law, which went into effect in September 2010, is unconstitutional because the province didn't actually have the jurisdiction to impose the rules as federal law governs criminal offences that involve blood alcohol content over 0.08 per cent.

Lawyers also argued that the law violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because it results in unreasonable search and seizure and gives too much power to the roadside police and allows for no appeal mechanism.

The court ruled Wednesday that B.C. was within its jurisdiction in putting in place the laws that target drivers with a blood alcohol content over 0.05 per cent, because the province should be allowed to regulate licensing of drivers and put in measures to enhance highway safety.

However, the judge also found that B.C.'s laws do violate the Charter when a driver is screened and found to fail a breathalyzer test by blowing above 0.08 per cent, as it gives the police power to impose criminal-like consequences with no opportunity given to the motorist to challenge the decision.
Part of B.C.'s drunk-driving law violates Charter, judge rules
 
#2 ·
I am not at all amazed to find that BC Law violates the charter. I am however pleasantly surprised a judge was able to see it. Shows that at least in Canada, there are still a few honest judges remaining.

The law does not target the individuals who are a problem. No studies whatsoever to show that people under the current criminal definition of impaired are more dangerous than stone sober drivers. Indeed doped drivers and texting/cell phone drivers are a far greater hazard.
 
#3 ·
Most of the time I just sit back & watch the FUBAR that is the gov't (feds, provincial & local) & shake my head.

On this particular piece of legislation (Alberta's new .05 proposal) however, I'm actually crafting a letter & sending it to the useful idiots. Dunno if it'll get any results, but I'm doing it anyway.
 
#4 ·
With Alberta on the verge of passing a similar law, what effect might the ruling have?



Part of B.C.'s drunk-driving law violates Charter, judge rules
Most of the time I just sit back & watch the FUBAR that is the gov't (feds, provincial & local) & shake my head.

On this particular piece of legislation (Alberta's new .05 proposal) however, I'm actually crafting a letter & sending it to the useful idiots. Dunno if it'll get any results, but I'm doing it anyway.
Just an FYI this is the legislation in many provinces, and not "new" legislation as in BC.

This is part of the tough on "crime" mentality being pushed at elected representatives and legislatures.

It is hard to legislate respectful and caring attitudes amongst the public.

In Nova Scotia the worst serial drunk driving offender has never acquired (to subsequently lose) a licence. How to control anti-social behaviour such as drinking (drunk) and driving is a monumental task.

Now even harder is how to control alcohol and the operation of a motor vehicle and not violate the basic laws of freedom and rights?
 
#5 ·
The current criminal limit was established with at least some respect to a scientific approach. The lower limits are more of an attempt at state control. Perfect if you admire life in the old Soviet Union but hardly appropriate in a nation that claims to hold personal rights and liberties sacrosanct.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top