Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
The more I think about this, I don't see how this law could survive a Charter challenge (caveat: IANAL).
Impounding your vehicle when you're below the legal limit could be deemed a violation of article 8 (no unreasonable search or seizure).
|
No it couldn't. In order to violate s.8 there needs to be a reasonable expectation of privacy being violated. Aside from the fact that the point of the impounding isn't to snoop around your car, there are plenty of s.8 cases out there (i.e. Belnavis) which clearly state that an automobile is generally subject to a reduced standard for s.8 purposes. Classic statement of Canadian constitutional law is that the charter protects people, not places, and it certainly doesn't protect your car. Long story short, your property rights are in no way enshrined in the Charter.
Quote:
|
Immediately suspending your license and impounding your vehicle could also be seen as a violation of section 11 (right to be presumed innocent until guilt is determined by a court of law), especially since roadside breathalyzers are so unreliable that they are not permitted to be used as evidence in court.
|
This, however, is far more likely, particularly if there is no avenue for judicial review built into this thing that would pass constitutional muster. There are plenty of absolute liability offences out there which is perfectly fine but I can't think of any off the top of my head that don't allow you to get in front of a judge to protest.