Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Transportation law - Highways - Automatic roadside prohibitions - Approved screening devices - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the legislation to mean that the result of the analysis alone is sufficient to form reasonable grounds to believe the driver’s ability to drive is affected by alcohol, without more - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that it is necessary to have an additional form of procedural protection to ensure the continuation of constitutional guarantees of Canadian citizens where the results of approved screening device tests are used as the basis for administrative penalties - Whether the Court of Appeal erred when it did not appropriately balance the public purpose of the legislation and the need to respect individual liberties in approved screening device testing, and by limiting its statutory interpretation to a public purpose analysis and failing to consider the broader constitutional issues at play in the use of approved screening devices - Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318, s. 215.41(3.1).

Mr. Wilson was stopped at a road check and asked to give a breath sample using an approved screening device (“ASD”). He blew a “warn” which is defined in s. 215.41(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, as “the concentration of alcohol in a person’s blood is not less than 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood”. The officer noted Mr. Wilson had “an odour of liquor on his breath” and “admitted to four beers hours earlier”. Mr. Wilson was subsequently issued a three-day driving prohibition. He challenged the prohibition, arguing there was no evidence, other than the “warn” reading, that his ability to drive was affected by alcohol. A delegate of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles upheld the prohibition on the basis that the “warn” reading alone was sufficient under s. 215.41(3.1) of the Motor Vehicle Act. The decision was quashed on judicial review. The Superintendent appealed. The Court of Appeal held that the chambers judge incorrectly applied the reasonableness standard of review. A court must be deferential to a tribunal’s interpretation of its statute, so long as it is reasonable. Having concluded that the delegate’s interpretation of s. 215.41(3.1) was reasonable, given the wording of the provision as well as its context and purpose, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.