[Dion]

B.C.'s tough drunk-driving laws upheld, but Supreme Court establishes limits

A Supreme Court ruling has upheld the rights of provinces to impose tough drunk-driving laws, but has also establishes limits.

The court ruled today that B.C.'s tough regime that passed in 2010 needed more emphasis on police oversight and drivers' rights in two decisions addressing the issue.

One of the cases decided today was filed by Lee Wilson. The second case involved Richard Goodwin and a group of other drivers. Goodwin's case dealt with the constitutional issues.

Legal experts who challenged B.C.'s five-year-old law said today's Supreme Court rulings guarantee a better balance between drivers' rights.

"The province's objective was a valid objective, but it needed to be balanced by charter rights," said Shea Coulson, a lawyer who argued automatic roadside prohibitions were unconstitutional.

"The court's biggest concern was that the device used by police was unreliable," said Coulson, adding that there were too few ways to challenge unreliable breathalyzer results.

In 2012 changes to the law ensured that every driver stopped in B.C. and breath tested would be offered a second test on an entirely different device by the officer involved. That was not always happening in the past.

In November 2014, Canada's highest court agreed to hear two cases involving B.C. drivers who were stopped by police at roadside checks. The case was heard in Canada's highest court in May 2015.

In one case, Wilson got a warning after blowing into a roadside screening device.

The other case involves James Goodwin and four other B.C. drivers who either refused to give a breath sample or registered a fail on a roadside screening device.

They challenged the province's automatic roadside prohibitions for those who blow over .08 on a screening device

"The ultimate question is whether the review provisions of the roadside suspension scheme offer reasonable protection against abusive exercise of the state power to intrude on the individual's private sphere, having regard to the nature of the scheme and the privacy interests at stake. In my view, the answer to this question is yes," said C.J. McLachlin, the chief justice who dissented from the other six on the constitutional issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...-b-c-1.3274137