Filkow Law welcomes lawyer Georges Prat to our legal team. Georges obtained his LLB from Cardiff University in 2015. At university, he excelled in criminal law and mooting. He won the 2nd year mooting competition at the UK’s Supreme Court in front of a Supreme Court justice. The following year, he was elected to the Student’s Law Society’s Executive Board as Master of the Moots.

As a natural barrister, Georges sought to work in the area of law most suited to court advocacy: criminal law. Upon returning to Canada, he articled at The Law Office of Alexander Ejsmont, a sole practising criminal law firm that had previously been based out of Toronto. He practised on his own for several years before eventually joining Filkow Law. Georges has appeared at all court levels in B.C., including in the Supreme Court of BC during one of the lengthiest murder trials in the history of the province, securing an acquittal for his client as junior counsel. Georges is also a member of the Canadian Bar Association, the Criminal Defence Advocacy Society, and the Trial Lawyer’s Association of BC. He prides himself on thoroughly advising clients and a high attention to detail.

Clients benefit from Filkow Law’s deep and broad knowledge and expertise of criminal lawdriving law and the criminal justice and court system. Filkow Law is known for its skilled advocacy, its highly accessible culture, its signature strategic approach to every case, and the exceptional results achieved.

The lawyers at Filkow Law have excellent reputations with the police, prosecutors and the courts across British Columbia. In addition to their courtroom skills, the lawyers at Filkow Law advocate for and achieve decisive victories away from the public eye, often before the case ever sees a day in court.

If you find yourself being investigated or charged with a criminal law offence in British Columbia, call Georges Prat today.

Read Now

On April 14, 2016, Dr. Perry Kendall, Provincial Medical Health Officer declared a public health emergency under the BC Public Health Act in response to increasing overdoses and overdose deaths in our province.

In an effort to reduce the number of deaths caused by overdoses of controlled substances, the federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health granted the province of British Columbia’s request for an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act allowing adults to possess small amounts of some controlled substances for personal use without fear of criminal prosecution.

From January 31, 2023, to January 31, 2026, adults (18 and over) in BC will be exempt from criminal charges for possessing a cumulative maximum 2.5 grams of the following substances:

  • Opium, including heroin and fentanyl.
  • Cocaine.
  • Methamphetamine, but not its salts.
  • MDMA.

There are two important conditions for the exemption to apply. First, possession of these substances must only be for personal use. This means there must be no intent to traffic, export, produce or manufacture the substance. Second, if the substance is possessed on a boat, a train, or a motor vehicle operated by an adult, the substance must not be readily accessible to the driver or operator.

The exemption from prosecutions does not apply in the following circumstances:

  • on K-12 school premises;
  • on child care facility premises;
  • in airports;
  • in a motor vehicle that is driven or operated by a minor, whether or not the vehicle is in motion; and
  • in a watercraft that is operated by a minor, whether or not the watercraft is in motion.

The stigma associated with substance use can lead people to use in riskier ways. Individuals found in possession of substances listed in the exemption will be provided with information on available local health and social services and can also be provided with assistance to connect with those services. The decision to exempt users from criminal prosecution will allow users to seek and obtain assistance and reduce the number of lives lost to overdoses in BC.

If you are being investigated or have been charged with a drug offence, contact the experienced lawyers at Filkow Law for legal assistance.

Read Now

Allegations of assault offences are very common.  From pushing and shoving to punching and kicking, assault is the most common type of violent crime.  This article outlines the different types of assaults recognized in Canadian law and provides some explanation of each.

What is an Assault?

Assault is defined as the intentional application of force to another person, directly or indirectly, without that other person’s consent.  Simply put, an assault occurs as soon as person A touches person B without person B’s consent.  Any unwanted touching is an assault.  There are a few features of assault that are important to understand.

First, the application of force must be intentional.  If person A accidentally touches person B, then they have not committed an assault.  Tripping and falling into another person, bumping into them while distracted, and being pushed into someone by a third party are not assaults because the application of force was unintentional.

Second, as set out in the definition, the application of force can be indirect.  Suppose person A intentionally pushes person B into person C.  In this scenario, person A is responsible for assaulting both person B and person C.  Person A assaulted person B because he directly applied force to person B, and person A also assaulted person C because he indirectly applied force to person C by pushing person B into person C.

Third, any physical contact without consent that is more than trifling is an assault.  Only the most minor and trifling physical contact is not an assault.  For example, if person A taps person B’s shoulder to get their attention, person A has not committed an assault because the touching is so minor.

Assault is also defined as “an attempt or threat, by any act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, that causes the other person to reasonably believe that the person will apply force to them”.  This means an assault can be committed even when there is no physical contact.  An act or gesture can be an assault.  An example of this occurs when person A raises their fist to person B in a way that makes person B reasonably believe he is about to be punched.  In this example, person A has assaulted person B even though there was no physical contact.

A conviction for assault can result in a criminal record, a jail sentence and other consequences.

Assault With a Weapon

Assault with a weapon is defined as an assault where a person “carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation thereof”.

Assault with a weapon shares the essential elements of an assault with the addition of a weapon.  A “weapon” is defined as “any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use: (a) in causing death or injury to any person, or (b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person”.

The law recognizes some items as weapons.  For example, firearms, switch blades, stilettos, butterfly knives and brass knuckles.  These are all weapons because they are designed to cause death or injury.

But depending on the context, anything – from a cell phone to a water bottle to a stapler – can become a weapon.  Whether a thing is a weapon is defined by its context.  Suppose during an argument person A grabs a stapler and hits person B with it.  In this scenario, person A assaulted person B with a weapon.  The stapler was simply a stapler until it was used in an assault.  Once used to hit person B, the stapler became a weapon.

Assault Causing Bodily Harm

An assault causing bodily harm is defined as an assault that results in bodily harm.  “Bodily harm” is defined as “any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature”.  The threshold for bodily harm is low.  It includes injuries such as bruising and cuts.

Assault causing bodily harm is defined by its outcome and not its intention.  For example, suppose person A punches person B and person C at separate times but in an identical manner.  Person B is cut by the punch and person C is not.  Even though the act of punching was the same in each case, person A committed assault causing bodily harm against person B because person B was cut.  It does not matter whether person A intended the cut to happen.

Assault causing bodily harm is more serious than an assault without bodily harm and can result in a more significant sentence on conviction.

Aggravated Assault

Aggravated assault is defined as an assault that “wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant”.  This means that there are effectively four separate kinds of aggravated assaults: those that wound; those that maim; those that disfigure; and, those that endanger life.

A “wound” is defined as “a break in the continuity of the whole skin that constitutes serious bodily harm”.  A stabbing meets the definition of a wound.

“Maim” means “the loss of the use of some body part or some bodily function”.  Breaking someone’s arm or leg is maiming.  The loss of use of this body part or function does not need to be permanent to constitute maiming.

“Disfigurement” is an injury that has a long-lasting and significant effect on the appearance or beauty of a person.  Examples include scarring as a result of cuts, acid or burns.  A temporary effect on a person’s appearance, such as a bruise or a black eye, is not a disfigurement.

“Endangering” means to endanger a person’s life as a result of a completed assault.  The following two examples help illustrate the definition:

  1. Person A pushes person B on a 4th-floor balcony causing person B to go over the railing.  Person B manages to hang on.  Person B is not harmed but his life was put in danger as a result of the assault.
  2. Person A pushes person B into a busy intersection with many fast-moving vehicles.  Person B is fortunate that the drivers see him and avoid a collision.

In both cases, the assault itself did not result in any harm or injury, but the person’s life was put in danger by the assault.

Aggravated assault is more serious than assault causing bodily harm and will usually attract a jail sentence upon conviction.

Domestic Assault

Domestic or spousal assault refers to any form of assault against an intimate partner or a family member.  A domestic assault is an aggravating circumstance on sentence if convicted.  An “intimate partner” is defined as a “current or former spouse, common-law partner and dating partner”.  Any assault against a girlfriend or boyfriend is a domestic assault.

Domestic assaults require special consideration for a few reasons.

First, an allegation of a domestic assault will routinely result in an accused person being put on conditions not to go to near their partner and not to contact their partner.  There are limited exceptions.  This can be challenging when a couple lives together or coparents children.

Second, domestic assaults may overlap with family court proceedings.  A decision in one case may affect the other.  This requires coordination between a family lawyer and a criminal lawyer.

Third, if the couple has children, the Ministry of Children and Family Development may send a social worker to investigate and make decisions about where a child should live or whether a protection order is required.  The Ministry has the authority to impose their own conditions separate from the police and the court based on the best interests of the children.

Uttering Threats

Uttering threats is defined as “knowingly uttering, conveying, or causing any person to receive a threat (a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person; (b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or (c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person”.  In other words, three specific types of threats are prohibited: threats to kill or harm someone; threats to damage property; and threats to injure a pet.

Allegations Of Assault Offences

Allegations of assault and uttering threats can be complex and serious.  The lawyers at Filkow Law have extensive experience in defending people from these types of charges.  If you find yourself being investigated or charged with this type of offence, call us immediately.

Read Now

In 2020, 1,200 motor vehicle accidents in the Lower Mainland involved pedestrians. 24 of those accidents involved the pedestrian passing away as a result of their injuries. Common contributing factors include speeding, distraction, or impairment. However, not all accidents involve active wrongdoing on the part of the driver. Often, accidents are simply just that, an accident. A common example involves a driver that does not see the pedestrian as a result of heavy rain and darkness in the winter months. However, this does not mean that the driver is not responsible. In these circumstances, the Court has made it clear that while there is no criminal wrongdoing on the part of the driver, wrongdoing could be proven under the Motor Vehicle Act for driving without due care and attention.

Fatal Pedestrian Vehicle Accidents: Legal Implications

The provision for driving without due care and attention can be found under section 144(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act. Although this offence is not criminal in nature it is dealt with in criminal court. This offence is proven when a driver – while attentive to the mechanics of driving – is inadvertently negligent by failing to direct his or her mind to matters (other than driving) which ought to have been directed. For example, Filkow Law commonly represents drivers who are making a legal left turn but strike a pedestrian that is legally crossing the street. The Court has stated that an accident of this kind is not criminal however, the driver should have turned his or her mind to the fact that a pedestrian may have been in the crosswalk prior to making the left turn and if the driver is found not to have turned their mind, they were inadvertently negligent and responsible for driving without due care and attention.

The law of pedestrian fatalities is complex. There is a fine line between being inattentive and being inadvertent.

The potential consequences for being found guilty of driving without due care and attention include a fine, a driving prohibition and, in some cases, a jail sentence.

If you were involved in a motor vehicle-pedestrian accident, call the lawyers at Filkow Law for knowledgeable and experienced advice.

Read Now

In a newly published decision from the British Columbia Supreme Court, Anthony Robinson of Filkow Law successfully defended his client on a charge of second-degree murder on account of a mental disorder rendering him incapable of knowing that the act was morally wrong. This defence is sometimes known as the “insanity defence”. It is provided for in section 16(1) of the Criminal Code:

No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

This defence can be divided into three parts: (1) Did the accused suffer from a mental disorder? (2) Did that mental disorder render the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act? (3) Did that mental disorder render that person incapable of knowing that the act was wrong?

What is a Mental Disorder?

A mental disorder is defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code as a “disease of the mind”. In R v Cooper, a 1979 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the majority of the court held that a “disease of the mind” means “any illness, disorder or abnormal condition which impairs the human mind and its functioning”. This definition excludes self-induced states, such as those caused by voluntarily consuming alcohol or drugs.

In this case, the judge agreed that the accused suffered from a mental disorder on the basis of two expert opinions that confirmed that the accused was schizophrenic.

Did that Mental Disorder Render the Accused Incapable of Appreciating the Nature and Quality of the Act?

In some cases, the accused may be so delusional that they are unaware of appreciating their actions. For example, some cases may involve a belief that the accused is fighting aliens or protecting people they are in fact harming.

In this case, the accused made statements to the police stating he wanted to turn himself in and that his intention was to kill the accused. The judge found that the accused was capable of appreciating the nature and quality of his act.

Did that Mental Disorder Render the Accused Incapable of Knowing the Act was Wrong?

In R v Chaulk, a 1990 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the majority of the court held that “wrong” means “morally wrong”, as opposed to “legally wrong”. In R v Oommen, a 1994 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the court clarified that “the crux of the inquiry is whether the accused lacks the capacity to rationally decide whether the act is right or wrong and hence to make a rational choice about whether to do it or not.”

In this case, the judge held that due to the accused’s schizophrenia and delusional beliefs that he had been poisoned by the victim, he did not have the capacity to make a rational choice about the rightness or wrongness of his act.

Conclusion

Ultimately, Mr. Robinson’s client was found not criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder that made him unable to know the wrongness of his act.

In any case, from murder to assault to drug trafficking, it is important to have experienced counsel who are knowledgeable and familiar with the most current law. Filkow Law has over 50 years of collective experience and is a well-respected criminal law firm. If you are being investigated or have been charged with any type of criminal offence in Vancouver, Richmond, Surrey, Kelowna, or Abbotsfordcontact our office for assistance.

Read Now

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 fifth instalment of this paper, outlining evidentiary issues for drinking and driving case law examples in BC.

The following is an excerpt regarding evidentiary issues surrounding samples, statements and disclosure:

Admissibility of Result of Analysis s. 320.31(7)

Subsection 320.31(7) states that voluntarily providing a sample of breath, blood, urine, sweat or other bodily substances may be used as evidence against the individual without notice. The individual need not be warned that they did not need to give the sample, or that the sample may be used as evidence against the individual. This provision has yet to be constitutionally challenged.

Admissibility of Statement s. 320.31(9)

Subsection 320.31(9) provides that a statement compelled by law is admissible for the purpose of justifying a demand for breath or other bodily samples. The section states:

(9) A statement made by a person to a peace officer, including a statement compelled under a provincial Act, is admissible in evidence for the purpose of justifying a demand made under section 320.27 or 320.28.

This provision was constitutionality challenged in R v Korduner, 2021 ABPC 83 an Alberta lower court decision. In Korduner, the accused was involved in a motor vehicle accident. On the way to the hospital after the accident, the accused made statements to a police officer in the ambulance. Those statements were compelled under the Traffic Safety Act and were used as evidence against the accused on a charge of impaired operation and refusing a breath demand.

The accused argued that section 320.31(9) of the Code violated sections 7, 8, 9 and 10(b) of the Charter. The accused relied on the “use immunity” principle to argue a conveyance operator involved in an accident is protected by the principle against self-incrimination. Following the precedents in R v White, [1999] 2 SCR 417, R v Powers, 2006 BCCA 454, R v Soules, 2011 ONCA 429, and R v Porter, 2015 ABCA 279 the court in Kroduner concluded s. 320.31(9) violated section 7 of the Charter. The court stated:

[50] Section 7 of the Charter provides protection for individuals who are required to report an accident. I have already found in Voir Dire #2, that the Accused/Applicant’s statements to the officer were statements compelled by section 71 TSA and that the Accused/Applicant had an honest and reasonable belief that she was statutorily compelled to answer his questions, and thus the principles of White were engaged and those statements provided are protected from any use in subsequent criminal proceedings. Per the reasoning of Powers, Soules, and Porter, use of the compelled answers are not admissible in a criminal proceeding for any purpose, including to establish reasonable grounds for a breath sample demand.

[51] Section 320.31(9) specifically allows for such a compelled statement to be used to justify a breath demand. The portion of section 320.31(9) dealing with a statement “compelled under a provincial Act” goes directly against the reasoning in White, Powers, Soules, and Porter. It is clear that the Accused/Applicant’s section 7 Charter rights are engaged. I find the above cited authority is determinative of the issue: that allowing a compelled statement under a Provincial Act, including a compelled statement under the TSA, would infringe the Accused/Applicant’s section 7 rights against self-incrimination in a manner not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The Accused/Applicant has demonstrated that section 320.31(9) both engages section 7 of the Charter and that the impugned provision is causally connected to the prejudice arising from the infringement of the principle against self-incrimination.9

However, since the Alberta Provincial Court lacks jurisdiction to declare legislation unconstitutional, the court limited the unconstitutional finding to the accused. Further, the court clarified that the finding was contingent on a section 1 Charter hearing, which to date has not been heard.

Disclosure

The Crown’s disclosure obligations with respect to the proper functioning of the Approved Instrument have now been codified in s. 320.34(1). The prosecutor must disclose information about any breath samples provided pursuant to subsection 320.28 including:

(a) the results of the system blank tests;

(b) the results of the system calibration checks;

(c) any error or exception messages produced by the approved instrument at the time the samples were taken;

(d) the results of the analysis of the accused’s breath samples; and

(e) a certificate of an analyst stating that the sample of an alcohol standard that is identified in the certificate is suitable for use with an approved instrument.

Pursuant to s. 320.34(2) the accused may apply to the court for a hearing to determine whether further materials should be disclosed regarding the proper functioning of the Approved Instrument. The application must be in writing and set out detailed particulars of the information the accused seeks to have disclosed and the likely relevance of that information to determining whether the Approved Instrument was in proper working order (see s. 320.34(3)). The disclosure application hearing must be held at least 30 days before trial.

If you exceeded the blood alcohol limit while driving and 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

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 fourth instalment of this paper, explaining the increased penalties for drinking and driving, including dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.

Increased Penalties for Drinking and Driving

The following is an excerpt regarding some of the increased penalties for a conviction of a criminal driving offence:

Mandatory minimum sentences now apply to dangerous operation causing bodily harm and causing death as well as fleeing the scene of an accident causing bodily harm and death.

There are now tiered fines for having a BAC over certain thresholds. A first conviction for having a BAC equal to or exceeding 120mgs% but less than 160mgs% will result in a minimum fine of $1500. If the BAC is greater than 160mgs%, the minimum fine is $2000. The minimum fine for a first offence for refusing to provide a breath sample is doubled to $2000.

The maximum jail sentence for impaired driving and refusal to provide a sample increased from 5 years to 10 years if prosecuted by indictment. This will result in automatic deportation for convicted foreign nationals or permanent residents.

Driving prohibitions under the Code for impaired driving, over .08 and refusal are:

  • For the first offence, a minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 3 years (plus any period of imprisonment).
  • For the second offence, a minimum of 2 years to a maximum of 10 years (plus any period of imprisonment).
  • For each subsequent offence, a minimum of 3 years with no maximum (plus any period of imprisonment).

There are also mandatory prohibitions under the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act for Criminal Code driving convictions.

Section 320.22 sets out aggravating features that the court must consider on sentencing. The factors are:

(a) the commission of the offence resulted in bodily harm to, or the death of, more than one person;

(b) the offender was operating a motor vehicle in a race with at least one other motor vehicle or in a contest of speed, on a street, road or highway or in another public place;

(c) a person under the age of 16 years was a passenger in the conveyance operated by the offender;

(d) the offender was being remunerated for operating the conveyance;

(e) the offender’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of committing the offence was equal to or exceeded 120 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood;

(f)  the offender was operating a large motor vehicle;[1] and

(g) the offender was not permitted, under a federal or provincial Act, to operate the conveyance.

This list of aggravating factors is not exhaustive.

A first offence for over .08 with a BAC below 120 mgs% is $1000. A first offence with a BAC in excess of 120mgs% carries a mandatory increased fine ($1500 if the readings are between 120 and 160 mgs% and $2000 if more than 160 mgs%). Therefore, for first offenders, the aggravating feature of having a BAC in excess of 120mgs% is already accounted for by the mandatory minimum sentence. However, this aggravating feature is not accounted for for subsequent offences or if bodily harm or death is involved.

[1] Cases that have considered whether a vehicle is a large motor vehicle include: R v Hillier, 2020 CanLII 85560 (NLPC) at paras 33-34 (Silverado truck); R v Sivakumaran, 2021 ONCJ 307 at paras 37-38 (Ford pickup truck); R v Caines, 2019 ONCJ 348, at para 26 (Dodge Ram pickup truck); R v Saxby, 2006 ABPC 201 at para 2, (Kenworth tractor); R v Dhadwal, 2012 ABPC 349 at paras 5, 25 (unspecified truck); R v Fairchild, 2017 ONCJ 658 at paras 1, 30 (Ford Escape SUV); R v Burger, 2015 ABPC 224 at paras 1, 68 (Semi-truck); R v Hallock, 2014 ABPC 232 at para 22 (Ford F150); and R v Bagri, 2016 BCCA 272 at paras 7, 17 (2003 Volvo tractor truck weighing 8575kg).

Read Now

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 third instalment of this paper, explaining how the Crown Counsel is no longer required to consult an expert witness for samples taken more than two hours after driving.

Crown Expert No Longer Required for Blood Alcohol Samples Outside Two Hours – s. 320.31(4)

The following is an excerpt explaining that Crown experts are no longer required to calculate blood alcohol for samples taken more than two hours after driving:

Under both the old and new provisions, samples of a driver’s breath or blood are supposed to be taken within two hours of the time of driving. Under the old provisions, samples taken within two hours of the time of driving were deemed to be the driver’s BAC at the time of driving. If the samples were not taken within two hours of driving, the Crown was required to call an expert, usually in the form of a toxicologist, to calculate (read back) what the BAC was at the time of driving.

Under the new provisions, an expert is no longer required if the samples were taken after the 2-hour window. Subsection 320.31(4) of the Code provides a formula that allows a court to do its own BAC calculation back to within two hours of the time of driving. The read-back need only go as far back as to within two hours of the time of driving (as opposed to at the time of driving) because of the new definition set out in 320.14(1)(b) discussed above. Section 320.31(4) states:

For the purpose of paragraphs 320.14(1)(b) and (d), if the first of the samples of breath was taken, or the sample of blood was taken, more than two hours after the person ceased to operate the conveyance and the person’s blood alcohol concentration was equal to or exceeded 20 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood, the person’s blood alcohol concentration within those two hours is conclusively presumed to be the concentration established in accordance with subsection (1) or (2), as the case may be, plus an additional 5 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood for every interval of 30 minutes in excess of those two hours.

According to the government, the elimination rate of 5 mg/100mL for every 30 minutes reflects a very conservative estimate of the rate at which alcohol leaves the bloodstream. There is scientific consensus that alcohol leaves the bloodstream at a rate greater than 5 mg/100mL per 30 minutes even in individuals who process alcohol slowly (other than in cases of near-complete liver failure that would ordinarily render a person incapable of driving). Accordingly, a BAC calculated at this rate will be lower than the absolute minimum scientifically possible BAC that an individual will have had within the two-hour window.[1]

Practitioners should keep in mind that although samples taken after two hours of the time of driving can be calculated back to within two hours, there is still a requirement in section 320.28 that samples of breath or blood be taken “as soon as practicable” (similar to the old provisions). In deciding whether the tests were taken “as soon as practicable”, the whole chain of events must be considered bearing in mind the Code permits an outside limit of two hours from the time of the offence to the taking of the first test. The “as soon as practicable” requirement is to be applied with reason.[2]

“As soon as practicable” is determined on a case-by-case basis and it is not an element of the offence the Crown must prove. Where the accused wishes to argue the samples were not taken as soon as practicable, the accused must challenge the Crown’s case by cross-examining the officer(s) on the various periods. (The accused cannot “lie in the weeds” as they say). Where the peace officer is unable to explain the delay, the defence can argue that the test was not administered as soon as practicable.

[1] Department of Justice, Charter Statement: Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (11 May 2017), online: <http://www.justice.gc.ca> [Department of Justice].

[2] R v Vanderbruggen, 2006 CanLII 9039 (ONCA).

If you exceeded the blood alcohol limit while driving and 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

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 second instalment of this paper, explaining the new legal blood alcohol limit in BC, and timing of the blood alcohol reading.

Legal Blood Alcohol Limit is Now 79 mgs%

The following is an excerpt regarding a change in the legal blood alcohol limit:

Under the previous regime, it was an offence to have a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in excess of 80mgs% (80 mgs of alcohol in 100ml of blood). It is now unlawful to have a BAC “equal to or exceeding” 80 mgs%. The new formulation was a response caused by rounding down BAC results to the nearest 10th mg%.[1]

Time of the Blood Alcohol Reading

The following is an excerpt outlining how the scope of the offence has expanded from the time of driving to within two hours of the time of driving, and how two defences have been eliminated:

One of the most significant changes to the legislation is that a driver’s BAC no longer needs to be in excess of the legal limit at the time the driver had care and control of the conveyance. It is now an offence to be in excess of the legal limit within two hours of operating a motor vehicle. The predecessor legislation made it an offence to have a BAC in excess of the legal limit at the time of driving. This meant there had to be a temporal overlap between a BAC in excess of the legal limit and the time of driving. That overlap no longer applies.

Section 320.14(1)(b) states:

Everyone commits an offence who

(b) subject to subsection (5), has, within two hours after ceasing to operate a conveyance, a blood alcohol concentration that is equal to or exceeds 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood;

The curious impact of this change is that the elements of the offence of being in excess of the legal BAC limit no longer has to overlap in time with the element of care and control. Without subsection (5), this amendment would allow someone to be convicted of an over .08 offence because their BAC was in excess of the legal limit within 2 hours of driving, even though their BAC was below the legal limit at the time of driving. Thankfully the definition is subject to the limitations prescribed in subsection 320.14(5) which states:

(5) No person commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if

(a) they consumed alcohol after ceasing to operate the conveyance;

(b) after ceasing to operate the conveyance, they had no reasonable expectation that they would be required to provide a sample of breath or blood; and

(c) their alcohol consumption is consistent with their blood alcohol concentration as determined in accordance with subsection 320.31(1) or (2) and with their having had, at the time when they were operating the conveyance, a blood alcohol concentration that was less than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood.

This new definition defeats two defences: bolus drinking; and the intervening drinking defence.

Bolus drinking refers to situations where a driver claims they consumed alcohol just before or during driving, but they were not over the legal limit at the time of driving because the alcohol was not fully absorbed in their blood until the time of testing. Because the bolus drinker did not consume alcohol after ceasing to operate the conveyance, they can not avail themselves of the exception prescribed in subsection 320.14(5)(a).

The intervening drinking defence is usually advanced when there has been a motor vehicle accident. The defence refers to situations where the driver claims they consumed alcohol after an accident such that they were over the legal limit after the accident but not at the time of driving. This defence is eliminated under the new definition by the operation of subsection 5(b), which provides that it is not an offence to be in excess of the legal limit within 2 hours of driving if the driver had a reasonable expectation they would be required to provide a sample of breath or blood.

It is difficult to conceive of all the circumstances in which a driver would reasonably be expected to provide a sample of breath or blood. However, being involved in a motor accident can be one of them.

This is reflected in R v Mair, [2019] OJ No 2215. In that case, the police received a report that a vehicle drove into a tree then left the scene. The police followed a trail of radiator fluid from the scene to a driveway. When the police questioned the accused, he confessed to driving the vehicle. The accused was arrested and taken to the police detachment and provided a sample in excess of the legal limit.

The accused gave a defence of intervening drinking. He testified at trial that he consumed two pints of beer at a pub prior to the accident. After the accident, he returned home and drank 60-70% of a bottle of whiskey. The accused said he was shaken from the accident, so he drank that amount in about 25 minutes.

This case pre-dated the 2018 amendments as the offence was alleged to have occurred in 2017. However, the court commented in obiter about whether under the new provisions the accused would have had a reasonable expectation to provide a breath sample in the circumstances. The court conclude that a driver who got into an accident would have difficulty establishing they did not have a reasonable expectation to provide a sample. At para. 38 the court stated:

I would note the recent amendments to the Criminal Code which provide new specific rules governing post-driving alcohol consumption. Under the new s. 320.14(5), Mr. Mair would have been required, in order to succeed in his defence, to establish that he had no reasonable expectation that he would be required to provide a sample of his breath. Given the fact that he had just been involved in an accident, Mr. Mair would have considerable difficulty establishing that. He would also have had to provide toxicological evidence to establish a BAC consistent with post-driving consumption.

Similarly, in Madadi-Farsijani, 2021 ONCJ 196 the accused put forward a defence of intervening drinking. The accused drank one beer with a friend then drove home. On the way home, the accused rear-ended a vehicle. He testified the collision caused him to have a flashback to a prior traumatic driving experience in Iran. Upset by the flashback, the accused grabbed one of the bottles of whiskey he purchased earlier in the day and drank about 10 ounces prior to exiting the vehicle. He left the opened bottle on the front passenger seat while the other unopened bottle remained on the rear floor of the vehicle.

The court concluded that an intervening drinking defence could not succeed because in the circumstances of this accident it was reasonable to expect the accused would be required to provide a sample.[2] At paras. 28 and 29 the court stated:

Mr. Madadi-Farsijani testified that after causing a collision on a major highway, he consumed a tremendous amount of alcohol. There was visible damage to his own vehicle. The other driver quickly confirmed to the defendant that the police would be called as an obvious consequence. On any standard, I find it was only reasonable to expect that a breath test was required in the circumstances.

[1] Backgrounder for former Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, p 23.

[2] In Madadi-Farsijani, the accused also filed a constitutional challenge to the Over .08 provision on the basis the section violates ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter. The court deferred dealing with the constitutional challenge until it determined the accused’s guilt under the existing provisions. To date, the Charter application has yet to be heard. In R v Kaur, 2020 ONCJ 538 the accused filed a Charter application regarding ss. 320.14(1)(b) and 320.31(1). Due to a scheduling conflict, the Charter challenge was deferred to the end of trial. The challenge has yet to be heard.

If you exceeded the blood alcohol limit while driving and 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