http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2255233/
Quote:
|
Justice Jon Sigurdson has ruled that automatic roadside suspensions are a justifiable infringement on Charter rights – except when the toughest penalties are applied when a motorist is found to have failed a roadside alcohol test. In those cases, the province needs to provide an appeal process, he concluded.
|
I don't see how the penalties should matter when it comes to what is constitutional. If the fine is $200 then it doesn't matter but if the penalty is bigger then suddenly it matters that you have the right to a fair trial and appeal process?
Quote:
|
This is particularly so considering the Province has legislated to base the consequences of a ‘fail’ reading entirely on the results of the screening device.
|
The screening device is (usually) the only basis for charging someone who is under the legal limit also. How is it constitutional to give the police the power of a judge if the fine is low but it's not constitutional if the penalties are larger and you are actually breaking the law?