Impaired Driving ' Recent Decisions From The Supreme Court Of Canada

• Law Firm: Devry Smith Frank LLP
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Transport, Rail, Road & Cycling, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Author: Mr David Schell
• Published date: 12 May 2023

For those who practice impaired driving and 80 plus law, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) recently rendered two decisions of interest.

1. v. McColman, 2023 SCC 8

On March 23, 2023 they decided an appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which dealt with whether a sobriety test under section 48 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act could be conducted on private property.

In the case of R. v. McColman, the Ontario Provincial Police had spotted the accused driving an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) out of a convenience store parking lot onto a highway. The officers followed the ATV and caught up to Mr. McColman about a minute later, when he had pulled onto the private driveway of his parents' home. The officers approached Mr. McColman in the driveway and observed obvious signs of impairment. The officers arrested him for impaired driving and brought him to the police station, where he did two breathalyzer tests. Mr. McColman was then charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit.

Key evidence at the trial was the testimony of one of the officers that they did not see any signs of impairment before stopping Mr. McColman. The officer explained that they stopped the accused while they were exercising their authority to conduct random sobriety checks under section 48(1) of Ontario's Highway Traffic Act (HTA). This section gives the police the authority to randomly stop a motor vehicle and check if the driver is sober. The trial Judge convicted Mr. McColman of driving with excess blood alcohol.

Mr. McColman appealed the trial decision. He argued the sobriety stop was illegal under section 48(1) of the HTA because it was conducted on private property. Mr. McColman's appeal eventually made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The SCC agreed with the argument of Mr. McColman and held that the officers did not have the authority under section 48(1) of the HTA to conduct the random sobriety stop in the private driveway. In their opinion, the HTA defined a "driver" as someone who drives or has care or control of a vehicle on a highway. A highway is defined as a "common and public highway, street, avenue that is intended for or used by the general public". They said Mr. McColman was not a driver for the purpose of section 48(1) because he was not on a highway when the police made the stop. As such, the stop was unlawful, resulting in the arbitrary detention of Mr. McColman and the violation of his...