Blog

Our blog is an online resource for information on the areas of criminal and driving law.

On December 18, 2018, Parliament made significant changes to drinking and driving laws. Filkow Law’s Anthony Robinson wrote and presented a paper explaining these changes to the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia on September 24, 2021. This is the first instalment of this paper, explaining the changes to drinking and driving legislation in BC.

Changes to Drinking and Driving Legislation

The following is an excerpt regarding two major changes to the language in the Criminal Code–“motor vehicle, vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment” is now “conveyance” and “forthwith” is now “immediately”:

The amendments were designed to simplify, clarify, and modernize the cumbersome language from the predecessor sections. The most obvious of these changes is the use of the term “conveyance” instead of the awkward phrase “motor vehicle, vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment” which was frequently repeated throughout the predecessor sections. This change makes the provisions much easier to read.

Another goal of the amendments was to change the language of the provisions to reflect the interpretations of the courts where possible. As one example, in section 320.27 which, allows the police to make an Approved Screening Device demand at the roadside, the term “forthwith” has been replaced with the term “immediately”. This change reflects how the term “forthwith” has been interpreted by the courts. It is also an example where the language has been modernized with more plain language text.

Alcohol Screening Provisions s. 320.27(2): ASD Demand

The following is an excerpt regarding the new police power to make roadside breath demands without reasonable suspicion of alcohol in the driver’s body. Mr. Robinson also explains issues with regards to the possession of the screening device and the timing of the test:

Although the changes made by the 2018 amendments are significant, the general structure of the legislation remains the same. Parliament has maintained the two-step process for the detection and enforcement of driving in excess of the legal blood alcohol limit. Like the predecessor legislation, the first step provides for the administration of a screening test at or near the roadside immediately after the interception of an operator. The second step provides for a breathalyser test into an Approved Instrument at a police station.

The threshold test for making an Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand at the roadside has changed significantly. Under the predecessor section, the police were required to have “reasonable suspicion of alcohol in the body” before making an Approved Screening Device demand. That remains the case under s. 320.27(1).

However, under s. 320.27(2), the police also now have the authority to demand a driver provide a sample of breath into an ASD without any suspicion that a driver has been drinking. Under the heading “Mandatory Alcohol Screening” s. 320.27(2) states:

320.27(2) If a peace officer has in his or her possession an approved screening device, the peace officer may, in the course of the lawful exercise of powers under an Act of Parliament or an Act of a provincial legislature or arising at common law, by demand, require the person who is operating a motor vehicle to immediately provide the samples of breath that, in the peace officer’s opinion, are necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made by means of that device and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose.

At least three Provincial Court decisions have held that section 320.27(2) passes constitutional muster. In R v Blysniuk, 2020 ONCJ 603 the Ontario Court of Justice found s. 320.27(2) violates sections 8 and 9 of the Charter but those violations are saved by section 1. In R v Morrison, 2020 SKPC 28 and R v Kortmeyer, 2021 SKPC 10 the Saskatchewan Provincial Court found s. 320.27(2) does not violate s. 9, but it does violate s. 8, and that violation is saved by s. 1.

There are three requirements for a valid demand under s. 320.27(2).

  1. The demand must be made in the course of the lawful exercise of police powers;
  2. The demand must be made by a peace officer who has an ASD in their possession.
  3. The demand must be made, and the test must be administered – immediately.

With respect to the first of these criteria, the police have always had the power to randomly stop drivers for safety and compliance reasons like checking for driver’s licenses, insurance, mechanical fitness, and driver sobriety. These stops have long been held constitutional.[1] Under s. 320.27(2) the police now also have the authority during a traffic stop to ask the driver to blow into an ASD in the absence of any belief the driver has consumed alcohol.

With respect to the requirement that the officer has the ASD in their possession, in R v Bath, 2021 CanLII 35120 the Newfoundland Provincial Court concluded that it was not necessary for an officer to have the ASD on their person for a lawful demand under s. 320.27(2). The accused argued that the demand made by an officer was invalid because another officer got the ASD out of the trunk of the police vehicle, unboxed it, readied the device and administered it to the accused. The court concluded that it was not necessary for an officer to have the ASD on them to legally avail themselves of s. 320.27(2). At para. 34 the court said:

As a matter of law, possession includes joint possession. The ASD was in the trunk of the police car, and both police officers had both knowledge and control of the ASD. Cst. Crann was, as a result, in possession of the ASD. As a result, I conclude that Cst. Crann’s demand for ASD breath test(s) was valid, despite the fact that the ASD was in the trunk of the police car when he made the demand.

The Alberta Transportation Safety Board considered the immediacy and possession requirement in R v MacDougall (Re), 2020 ABTSB 2264. In that case, a police officer witnessed the driver throw a cigarette out of the driver’s side window while swerving his truck from side to side. The officer stopped the vehicle and asked the driver to wait while he called another officer to bring an ASD. The ASD arrived 5 minutes after the accused was pulled over and the officer read the accused the ASD demand under s. 320.27(2). The accused was then arrested for refusing to provide a sample and issued a license suspension under the Alberta Traffic Safety Act.

The demand was invalid. The Board found the immediacy requirement under section 370.27(2) requires that the process be “minimally intrusive and as prompt as possible under the circumstances”. In this case, the driver was already detained by the time the second officer arrived with the ASD and read the demand. Therefore, the breath demand was not “immediate”. At para. 21 the Board said:

In the matter at hand, the Board finds that the MAS [Mandatory Alcohol Screening] demand was not made immediately and was, therefore, invalid. Although Cst. McIsaac may have been the one to read the demand to the Appellant upon his arrival, the Appellant had already been detained by Cst. McDougall for the purpose of conducting a MAS. The immediacy requirement of an MAS demand pertains to the detainee and to the length and purpose of their detention. It does not relate to the police officer who verbalizes the demand, and the promptness with which they do so.

The fact that the police officer who eventually read the demand had the ASD in his possession was immaterial.

The Alberta Transportation Safety Board came to a similar conclusion in Kalyn-Bekevich (Re), 2020 ABTSB 1940 and excluded the evidence of the breath sample under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

ASD Demand: Summary

In summary, an officer does not need to physically possess the ASD at the time of the demand. Having the device in a nearby vehicle is sufficient. Possession includes joint possession by another officer at the scene. The promptness with which an officer can administer the test will inform the analysis about whether the officer possessed the device at the time of the demand. If a first ASD malfunctions, use of another ASD may be lawful as long as the switching of the devices does not result in delay.[2]

[1] See R v Dedman, [1985] 2 SCR 2, R v Hufsky, [1988] 1 SCR 621 and R v Ladouceur, [1990] 1 SCR 1257.

[2] Bender (Re), 2019 ABTSB 1752.

If you need legal assistance, the lawyers at Filkow Law have over 50 years of experience dealing with all types of criminal law and driving law cases. Please feel free to give us a call.

Read Now

It is not uncommon for drivers in British Columbia to get caught in a vicious cycle of driving prohibitions. This is particularly common with novice drivers, and it can cause some people to be unable to graduate to a full licence for 5-10 years. This cycle of driving prohibitions BC can have compounding negative consequences for a driver’s employment, familial obligations, and financial well-being.

What Is Driving Prohibition?

The driving prohibition cycle begins with an initial prohibition issued by RoadSafetyBC, the government body that monitors the driving records of licence holders in British Columbia. Drivers are brought to RoadSafetyBC’s attention when traffic tickets or alcohol or drug infractions are added to driving records, subject to certain thresholds.

Class 7 or 8 drivers (N or L) receive the most scrutiny. According to the Driver Improvement Program Policy and Guidelines, Class 7 drivers can be prohibited for any single ticket carrying two or more demerit points, or any single alcohol or drug-related infraction.

Drivers with full licences (Classes 1 – 6) are given more latitude but are still monitored. For example, two high-risk offences (excessive speeding or cell phone tickets) within a certain time period will result in a lengthy prohibition.

Prohibitions are absolute and measured in months, not weeks. Prohibitions from RoadSafetyBC will not allow certain hours where you can drive for work or school.

What Happens After Your Driving Prohibition Finishes?

Following the conclusion of a driving prohibition, a driver will be on probation. RoadSafetyBC will scrutinize the driver’s record for the next two years, or until the driver gets their full licence. If further traffic, or alcohol or drug-related infractions are added to the driving record, another prohibition will issue. Further, a subsequent prohibition is almost certain to be longer in duration than the first prohibition. In this way, the vicious cycle of prohibitions continues. The driving prohibitions get longer and the probationary period starts all over. Driving during a driving prohibition will lead to a driving while prohibited charge which are dealt with in criminal court.

While a lawyer experienced in driving matters can be of assistance at any time, the best way to avoid any disruption in your ability to drive, and to avoid falling into the cycle of prohibitions, is to obtain legal advice at the earliest stage. If you have received a driving prohibition, been caught driving while prohibited or placed on novice driver probation call Filkow Law for help.

Read Now
The following paper was written by Filkow Law’s Kevin Filkow in response to the BC Government’s amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) in 2010. These amendments are now the law in BC and the issues outlined by Mr. Filkow persist to this day. This paper was written for The Advocate, a leading law journal published by the Vancouver Bar Association. If you have been charged with impaired driving in bc or are in need of legal assistance, or call Filkow Law today.

The New Impaired Driving Laws: What Is Not Being Said

The Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General issued a News Release on April 27, 2010[1].  The Release trumpeted that “The province is introducing Canada’s most immediate and severe impaired driving penalties to save lives, curb repeat offenders and give police more enforcement tools.”

Subsequent to this Release and as an extension of same, the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles issued bulletins spelling out the penalties which will be part of the new regime.  A comparison of the current and new penalties can be found at the foot of this article[2].

Fundamental to the new regime will be an unequivocal acceptance of a police officer’s report of what took place at a roadside stop upon a breathalyzer test being administered or upon one being refused.  If the reported reading is a fail or if the officer reports a refusal, the new penalties take effect immediately with very limited administrative appeal rights with no true prospect of success.  The ostensible intention, as amplified below, is not to engage drinking drivers in the judicial process except in a limited number of situations.

The Backgrounder[3] to the Province’s Release stresses:  “Major amendments to impaired driving sections of the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) will ensure impaired drivers caught in BC face instant loss of their driving privileges (90 days) and impoundment of their vehicles (30 days).”   There are other corollary mandatory requirements, i.e. completing the Responsible Driver Program and installing an ignition interlock device which must be utilized for a minimum of one year.  Both these programs are costly. They are without exceptions for hardship or otherwise. In addition, the financial penalties are substantial.  For example, a driver with no relevant history failing a breath sample at roadside or refusing to provide a sample will face minimum fines and fees of approximately $4060.

The Release does add that failing or refusing drivers may also face criminal charges.

What the Release does not say is that there is every indication that criminal charges will only be laid in particularly aggravated circumstances (such as an accident or where there is a prior related conviction) which going forward will be increasingly rare.  The effect of this is that the overwhelming majority of drivers, tested under the new regime, will have no meaningful recourse to challenge what the police say took place at the roadside.  The peace officer will record the reading of the Approved Screening Device (ASD) or alternatively will document the  alleged refusal and then “the curtain drops.”

While right-minded citizens of British Columbia are acutely concerned about drinking and driving, there is every reason to be discomforted by this ‘machine type of justice.’ The ASD was intended to be a screening mechanism under the Criminal Code to assist a peace officer in evaluating the driver’s condition as to sobriety.  The ASD does not have a record keeping or memory capacity.  The instrument can be operated improperly.  The new legislation, however, effectively allows the reading to be definitive.  There is no opportunity to challenge the instrument, no opportunity to cross examine the officer as to the integrity of what occurred and no opportunity to challenge the manner in which the ASD was operated.  An instrument intended only as a screening device is now elevated to a determinative role[4].

The new regime reposes extraordinary power and authority in a peace officer.  Failure to allow for a criminal defence process disregards the unfortunate reality that there are zealous or wrongly disposed peace officers or officers who may mismanage the instrument or simply make a mistake.  No cross-examination or scrutiny of the officer takes place under this regime.

What is not being said is that highly culpable behaviour such as driving while drunk will now largely be outside the criminal process.   The Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles on its website[5] stresses that the “province is introducing changes to give BC the toughest provincial impaired driving legislation in the country.  If you drink and drive after the new law comes into effect on September 20, 2010, you can count on penalties adding up to between $600 and $4060 – even if it’s the first time you’re caught – and more time off the road.”

The corollary of this new approach, though, is that in not facing criminal charges, the driver will not be exposed to the instructiveness of the criminal justice system.  There is significant value in the experience of retaining counsel, facing a public record for criminal behaviour, facing denunciation, and, on some occasions, receiving thoughtful remarks from a presiding judge.  There is an irony, a disconnect that behaviour which is such a serious threat to public safety, will now largely avoid the criminal process.

Also unspoken and related to the previous paragraph is that the province clearly intends to save serious treasury by allocating significantly less resources to what has been the criminal process, i.e. police investigations, Crown prosecutions and trials.  Ostensibly, the motivation is to free up these resources to allocate to ‘more serious’ criminal behaviour.  If that is so, the priorities are misguided. There is probably no form of criminal behaviour more pervasive than drunk driving.  There is probably no criminal behaviour more capable of effective deterrence through public denunciation and the related process.  It is also a reality that police officers should be investigating criminal behaviour; this behaviour should not be given diminished significance.

The volume and the cost of the impaired driving problem should not be a rationale for compromising individual rights and protections.  There are no practical or genuine checks and balances under this new regime.  Criminal law has always required a very high standard of proof and a compelling burden on the Crown to meet its case.  What the Federal Government sees as criminal will now be something else – effectively an administrative regulatory matter.  It would seem reasonable to expect that the new legislation will face a challenge in seeking to displace the federal criminal law power under s. 91 of the Constitutional Act.

What is not mentioned is that there will be a disparity between incidents where there is an ASD handy and those incidents where there is not.  Any driver pulled over in the latter circumstances will likely be subject to the old regime and will in these limited cases have access to the criminal justice system.

Indicative of how far reaching is this philosophical change by the BC government is the Warning protocol.  This Warning protocol will apply to drivers whose apparent readings are below the legal limit of .08% blood alcohol content and may not be demonstrating any signs of impairment.

As outlined above, a driver who fails (above .08%) or ‘refuses’ to provide an ASD sample will be given a 90-day suspension at roadside, will be subject to a one year Interlock Ignition program and financial penalties which amount to $4060.  His or her vehicle will be impounded for 30 days.  The Warn range is a reading of .05 to .08% (some ASDs are calibrated to .099%).  This results in an immediate 3-day suspension, a 30-day impoundment and minimum fines and fees of about $600.  This is for the first warn in 5 years.  A second warn in the same period draws a 7-day suspension, a longer period of impoundment and minimum fines and fees of $760.  A third time warning within 5 years carries with it a 30-day suspension, a 30-day impoundment, a one year Ignition Interlock program and a minimum financial penalty of $3650.  Three beers within a two hour period would put virtually anyone in the Warn range.  There is again no practical opportunity to challenge these consequential penalties and, in these cases, for not behaving in an illegal manner.

The province’s express rationale is that enforcement of drinking and driving offences will be far more expedient under the new regime.  It characterizes the new regime as the toughest driving laws in the country.  While the penalties under the new laws are certainly swift and severe, the intended approach avoids the criminal justice system and allows a matter of serious legal consequence to be technologically and summarily resolved at the instance of a peace officer whose fairness and ability are taken as a “given.”  In this author’s view this departure from the honoured protections is a matter of concern.  A better alternative would be to ensure greater resources as necessary to expedite the process which preserves the rights and protections of individuals.

[1] Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, News Release, 2010PSSG0026-000472, “B.C. INTRODUCES CANADA’S TOUGHEST IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS” (27 April 2010).

[2] See Appendix: Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, online: CURRENT and NEW Penalties Comparison Chart <http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/publications/docs/impaireddriving-currentandnewpenalties.pdf>.

[3] Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, Backgrounder, 2010PSSG0026-000472, ” B.C.’S IMPAIRED DRIVING LAW TO CHANGE” (27 April 2010).

[4] The Supreme Court of Canada held in R. v. Orbanski, [2005] S.C.J. No. 37, that there is no entitlement at the roadside to be advised of or to receive counsel as the evidence obtained would only go to the police officer’s reasonable grounds to make a breathalyzer demand. The new legislation extends that principle to a situation of a very different character.

[5] Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, online: Impaired Driving <http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/impaired-driving/index.htm>.

© By Kevin A Filkow

 

Read Now

Witnesses giving evidence or testifying in court is a fundamental part of the criminal justice system. A single witness can make or break a case.

Types of court witnesses in a criminal matter

There are generally three kinds of witnesses: (1) eyewitnesses, (2) expert witnesses and (3) character witnesses. Eyewitnesses testify as to what they saw or heard. For example, if Mr. Jones saw someone break into a home, Mr. Jones would be an eyewitness who could give evidence about who and what he saw. Similarly, if Ms. Jones heard the sound of breaking glass, Ms. Jones would be an eyewitness who could provide evidence about what she heard. Both the prosecution and the defence can call an eyewitness to give evidence. After a witness has given their evidence, the other side will have an opportunity to cross-examine that witness in court.

Expert witnesses provide an opinion on an issue that is beyond the experience and knowledge of the judge or jury—for example, the diagnosis of a mental disorder or the cause of a motor vehicle accident. A judge must qualify expert witnesses before they are allowed to testify. Expert witnesses cannot give evidence as to whether they think an accused person is innocent or guilty, but their opinion can strongly impact the judge or jury.

Character witnesses may be called to speak to the good or bad character of a person. Character witnesses do not give evidence regarding the incident itself but rather their knowledge of a person’s reputation regarding certain character traits, such as honesty or morality. Generally, the Crown is prohibited from adducing evidence about an accused person’s character unless the accused brings it up first. For example, if Mr. Jones is accused of fraud, he might say that he would never commit a fraud because he is such an honest person. This would open the door for the Crown to bring in their own witnesses as to Mr. Jones’ bad character.

What qualifies a court witness?

There are few qualifications for witnesses. A witness must be able to understand the nature of an oath or solemn affirmation and communicate evidence. In cases where a witness does not understand an oath or solemn affirmation, by reason of mental disorder or otherwise, they can still testify by a promise, to tell the truth. If a witness is 14 years or younger, they must be able to understand and respond to questions and promise to tell the truth.

What qualifies an expert witness?

Expert witnesses are subject to more qualifications than ordinary witnesses. The proposed expert witness must: 

  • be relevant; 
  • be necessary to help the judge or jury;
  • not be excluded by any other rule of evidence; and 
  • must be “properly qualified.”

The necessity of an expert will depend on whether the opinion is outside the realm of ordinary human experience. Common areas where experts are required include:

  • accident reconstruction;
  • alcohol or drug analysis;
  • injury causation;
  • arson;
  • cell phone towers;
  • digital analysis (cellphones, computers, etc.)
  • social science
  • mental health; and
  • DNA.

The judge makes the final decision about whether an expert is qualified or not based on their education, training and experience.

What qualifies a character witness?

There are no special qualifications for character witnesses. If you are giving evidence of the accused’s character, you can only give testimony as to the general reputation of the accused for a certain character trait. Common traits are honesty and morality. 

For example, if Mr. Jones is giving evidence about the character of the accused, he might testify to the following:

  • Mr. Jones’ own credibility and reputation;
  • Mr. Jones’ relationship and connection to the accused; 
  • how Mr. Jones knows the general reputation of the accused in the community; and 
  • the reputation of the accused is regarding a particular character trait.

Mr. Jones cannot give evidence about his personal opinion or specific good acts the accused has performed in the past unless those acts are demonstrative of the relevant character trait.

What if I incriminate myself in someone else’s trial?

As a witness, you can be compelled to answer a question even if it may incriminate you or establish your liability in a civil proceeding. However, that compelled testimony cannot be used in another proceeding against you except for prosecuting perjury or giving contradictory evidence. For example, if Mr. Jones testified that he remembered witnessing an assault because it happened near his favourite bar, and he had just finished drinking five beers before driving past the crime scene, the Crown cannot use that admission as evidence against Mr. Jones in a drinking and driving case against Mr. Jones. However, if there was an impaired driving case against Mr. Jones, and he testified that he only had one glass of wine, he can be cross-examined on his testimony from the other proceeding to show that he is not credible or deliberately gave a false statement under oath or both.

What if the accused is my spouse?

Every witness in court can be compelled to testify – even if the accused is their spouse. However, no person is required to disclose any communication made to them by their spouse during their marriage. For example, Ms. Jones could be compelled to answer questions about whether she saw her husband, Mr. Jones, damage their neighbour’s car. Ms. Jones could not be compelled to answer questions about whether Mr. Jones discussed his plans to damage their neighbour’s car with her.

Types of Witnesses In Court: Conclusion

Understanding the role of each court witness is a vital part of trial preparation and strategy. The lawyers at Filkow Law have over 50 years of experience dealing with all types of witnesses. If you are in need of legal assistance, please feel free to give us a call.

Read Now

Filkow Law welcomes lawyer West Pryde to our legal team. West was called to the bar in 2021 after completing his articles with Filkow Law. He practices in various areas including criminal law, driving law administrative law, as well as civil forfeiture and ICBC insurance matters.

West received his J.D. from the Peter A. Allard School of Law in 2020. He was a clinic head at the Law Students’ Legal Advice Program, where he gave free legal advice at the Carnegie Community Centre in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. West was also a caseworker with UBC Innocence Project, where he worked to overturn wrongful convictions.

Prior to law school, West earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in philosophy at the University of British Columbia in 2017.

In his spare time, West enjoys producing electronic music and practicing martial arts.

If you are charged with or being investigated for a criminal or driving offence, call West Pryde at Filkow Law to assist you.

Read Now

Vancouver drug decriminalization is a heavily contested topic amongst city officials. In response to the alarming rise of overdoses in British Columbia, the municipal government of Vancouver recently submitted a request to the federal government to decriminalize the simple possession of illicit drugs within the city of Vancouver.

 

The Minister of Health’s Power to Exempt Certain Controlled Substances 

The Minister of Health has the authority, pursuant to section 56(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, to exempt any substance if the Minister determines it is necessary for medical or scientific purposes or determines it is in the public interest. Section 56(1) was originally legislated to support the advancement of medical and scientific research. Now, the focus of the request is the public interest. If the Minister determines it is in the public interest and makes an exemption, then it would not be an offence under the CDSA to possess those exempt substances.

Related: Sentencing for Fentanyl Charges in BC

Vancouver Drug Decriminalization: What Kinds of Drugs And How Much?

 

The proposal seeks an exemption for opioids, including heroin, fentanyl and other powder street opioids, as well as cocaine, crack cocaine and amphetamine. These are the drugs most commonly involved in the current opioid overdose crisis.

 

The following list outlines the substances proposed and the maximum amount allowed under the exemption:

  • Opioids (i.e. heroin, fentanyl, and other powder street opioids): 2 grams
  • Cocaine: 3 grams
  • Crack Cocaine: 10 rocks or 1 gram (1 rock = 0.1 grams)
  • Amphetamine: 1.5 grams

Vancouver Drug Decriminalization: How Drastic is the Change? 

 

While Vancouver is taking an initiative to prevent and mitigate the negative impacts associated with the overdose crisis, it is important to remember that decriminalization is not legalization. The proposal is limited to simple possession. The exemption does not apply to commercial purposes such as possession for the purpose of trafficking. 

 

Even before Vancouver’s proposal, the number of charges recommended for simple possession has diminished over the years. Possession charges are certainly less common than for more serious offences. The list below outlines the number of charges the Vancouver Police Department recommended for simple possession over the past 12.5 years:

  • 2008: 476 charges for simple possession
  • 2009: 224
  • 2010: 141
  •  2011: 90
  • 2012: 65
  • 2013: 70
  • 2014: 48
  • 2015: 65
  • 2016: 43
  • 2017: 30
  • 2018: 21
  • 2019: 16
  • 2020: 10 (January to June 2020)

Given the significant decrease in the number of charges recommended for simple possession, the proposal does not bring about a drastic change for drug offences in the city of Vancouver. Nevertheless, the proposal is a step towards the more general decriminalization of controlled substances. It may also reduce the stigma associated with drug use.

Vancouver Drug Offences: Call Filkow Law

Filkow Law is a highly respected criminal and driving law firm with 50 years of collective expertise delivering outstanding results. If you are in need of legal assistance, contact us today.

Read Now