One of the first reported criminal cases regarding drinking and driving in Canada was an Alberta decision in 1920 called R. v. Nickle.
In 1947, Parliament amended the Criminal Code again, adding a presumption of care or control when a person was found sitting in the driver's seat of a motor vehicle.
[4] In 1969 (fifteen years after the introduction of the breathalyzer into Canada), Parliament created an offence of driving while "over 80" (over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood).
By 2008, drinking and driving cases made up 12 per cent of all criminal charges, making it the largest single offence group.
The changes included adding new evidentiary restrictions on defendants trying to raise "evidence to the contrary" regarding the presumption of a person's blood alcohol concentration, created mandatory standard field sobriety tests that can be requested by a police officer, created additional means to allow police officers to test for the possible presence of drugs in a driver's body, increased the minimum sentences to their current level ($1000 fine for the first offence, 30 days in jail for the second offence, and 120 days in jail for the third offence), and created new offences for "over 80" causing death or bodily harm and refusing to provide a sample where operation caused death or bodily harm.
On December 18, 2018, Part Two of the bill came into effect, and replaced all the existing driving provisions with a new comprehensive regime in the largest update since 1985.
Altogether, the 2018 changes included mandatory alcohol screening requirements, per se limits on the amount of legal drugs drivers could have in their system, as well as an expanded "80 or over" offence.
[8] Part Two carried more severe immigration-related consequences for both permanent residents and foreign nationals convicted of an impaired driving offence.
Police officers can obtain reasonable grounds from observations they make and information they receive, including the results of the other demands listed below.
Typical observations supporting a reasonable suspicion is if a driver has an odour of an alcoholic beverage on their breath, or if they admit they had a drink.
If a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person has alcohol or drugs in their body, and that they have been operating or have had care or control of a vehicle within the past three hours, they can demand that that person perform physical coordination tests, referred to as Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs).
"[18] The assertion regarding mandatory compliance with an SFST demand is based on "failure to comply with a demand", as an offence under section 254(5) of the Criminal Code, but it is unclear whether section 254(5) applies to refusal of SFSTs (provided the suspect agrees to take an approved instrument chemical test).
[citation needed] Nevertheless, it is unclear whether there has ever been a prosecution under this interpretation of "failure to comply with a demand" as applied to SFSTs.
Sections 254(1) and (5) of the Criminal Code address this point, but only with respect to chemical testing (breath, blood, etc.
)[19] Of note, it is generally advised to comply with a demand to submit to the approved instrument chemical test.
[11] If the evaluating officer has reasonable grounds that the person is impaired by alcohol, they can make an approved instrument demand.
[citation needed] If any of the above demands are lawfully made, it is a criminal offence to fail or refuse to comply with them, unless the person can show they had a reasonable excuse.
[24] If no one is hurt or killed, and the prosecutor is proceeding by summary conviction, the maximum sentence is 2 years less a day.
A province is allowed to set up special ignition interlock device programs specifically to limit criminal driving prohibitions.
Canada is a federal state, and responsibility for road safety with respect to drunk driving falls on both Parliament and the provincial legislatures.
Nonetheless the accused may be charged with driving while prohibited under criminal law despite possessing a valid driver's licence.
Administrative licence suspensions are separate from the driving prohibitions that are ordered as part of a criminal sentence.
Therefore, the provinces have the ability to administratively suspend a person's driver's licence separately from any criminal proceedings.