Canadian Lawyer - sample

42 N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 7 w w w . C A N A D I A N L a w y e r m a g . c o m n May, the federal government tabled Bill C-46, which would amend the Criminal Code for impaired driv- ing offences. The proposed changes come on the eve of the government's legalization of recreational canna- bis use, and they include new "legal limit" drug offences, as well as man- datory alcohol screening. Proponents say that mandatory alcohol screening, for one, will bring Canada into line with other Western nations that have lowered impaired driving charges using this form of screening; but the criminal defence bar cautions that aspects of the new bill may present Charter challenges and further burdens on the courts. "I think, absolutely, we are going to see more impaired drivers before the courts, and a greater strain on the justice system," says Toronto defence lawyer Daniel Brown. "Almost exclusively, these [impaired driving] cases are prosecuted in the provincial court system," where, he says, there is "already a strain on prosecuto- rial and police resources; these changes will only increase the strain on all of the justice participants." Bill C-46 has two parts. Part 1 would add new sections for driving while under the influence of drugs other than alcohol and would come into force on Royal assent, before Bill C-45, the Can- nabis Act, comes into force. Part 2 of the proposed legislation would reform the entire Criminal Code transportation regime and would include all the drug-impaired driving provisions under Part 1 of the bill. It would repeal all the current provisions dealing with transportation offences (ss. 249 to 261) and would come into effect 180 days after Part 1 received Royal assent, in order to allow the provinces time to prepare for its implementation. Mandatory alcohol screening is the proposed change that seems to be get- ting the most attention. The "reason- able suspicion" test for the roadside breath test will be eliminated with the introduction of mandatory alcohol screening, under proposed s. 320.27(2). Under current law, a police officer with an alcohol screening device must have grounds to make a demand for a breath test; this would disappear if passed under the new legislation. Otherwise known as random test- ing, "the revised title does not change its essence and it remains a random test that can be administered without any grounds," the criminal justice section of the Canadian Bar Association wrote in its review of Bill C-46, published in Septem- L E G A L R E P O RT \ F O R E N S I C S & C R I M I N A L DUSHAN MILIC Supporters of federal rules on alcohol screening say it will help prevent accidents, but critics predict Charter litigation By Elizabeth Raymer New drinking and driving rules I

• Cover