Difference between revisions of "Proof of Impairment by Alcohol (Prior to December 13, 2018)"

From Criminal Law Notebook
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 8: Line 8:
 
''R v White'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fwwdf 2004 NLSCTD 9] (CanLII), (2004), 50 M.V.R. (4th) 177 (NLSC){{perNLSC|LeBlanc J}}<br>
 
''R v White'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fwwdf 2004 NLSCTD 9] (CanLII), (2004), 50 M.V.R. (4th) 177 (NLSC){{perNLSC|LeBlanc J}}<br>
 
''R v Loveman'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1jxxj 2005 NLTD 51] (CanLII), (2005), 15 M.V.R. (5th) 280 (NLSC){{perNLSC|Schwartz J}}<br>
 
''R v Loveman'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1jxxj 2005 NLTD 51] (CanLII), (2005), 15 M.V.R. (5th) 280 (NLSC){{perNLSC|Schwartz J}}<br>
''R v Thompson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/frr33 2012 ONCJ 377] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Nadel J}}{{at|13}}<br>
+
''R v Thompson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/frr33 2012 ONCJ 377] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Nadel J}}{{atL|13|http://canlii.ca/t/frr33}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
Line 17: Line 17:
 
As  observed in ''R v Raven'', [1999] OJ No 48 (Gen. Div.){{NOCANLII}}{{perONSC|Durno J}}{{ats|47 and 50}}: it is incorrect to read Stellato as requiring only proof of a slight degree of impairment by alcohol as opposed to a slight degree of impairment of one’s ability to operate a motor vehicle as a result of the consumption of alcohol
 
As  observed in ''R v Raven'', [1999] OJ No 48 (Gen. Div.){{NOCANLII}}{{perONSC|Durno J}}{{ats|47 and 50}}: it is incorrect to read Stellato as requiring only proof of a slight degree of impairment by alcohol as opposed to a slight degree of impairment of one’s ability to operate a motor vehicle as a result of the consumption of alcohol
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
The judge should not assume that mere impairment of any functional ability is equivalent to impairment by alcohol.<ref>{{supra1|Andrews}}{{at|17}} (Courts "must not fail to recognize the fine but crucial distinction between ‘slight impairment’ generally, and ‘slight impairment of one’s ability to operate a motor vehicle.") <br>
+
The judge should not assume that mere impairment of any functional ability is equivalent to impairment by alcohol.<ref>{{supra1|Andrews}}{{atL|17|http://canlii.ca/t/1nnxf}} (Courts "must not fail to recognize the fine but crucial distinction between ‘slight impairment’ generally, and ‘slight impairment of one’s ability to operate a motor vehicle.") <br>
 
''R v Sampson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/243zj 2009 NSSC 191] (CanLII), [2009] NSJ No. 280{{perNSSC|Beveridge J}}</ref>
 
''R v Sampson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/243zj 2009 NSSC 191] (CanLII), [2009] NSJ No. 280{{perNSSC|Beveridge J}}</ref>
  
Line 23: Line 23:
 
''R v Christopher'', (1982) BCJ No. 2008 (BCCA){{NOCANLII}}{{at|2-5}}<br>
 
''R v Christopher'', (1982) BCJ No. 2008 (BCCA){{NOCANLII}}{{at|2-5}}<br>
 
''R v Pelletier'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g8f8r 1989 CanLII 4823] (SK QB), (1989) SJ No. 493 (Sask. Q.B.){{perSKQB|Batten J}}<br>
 
''R v Pelletier'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g8f8r 1989 CanLII 4823] (SK QB), (1989) SJ No. 493 (Sask. Q.B.){{perSKQB|Batten J}}<br>
''R v Payette'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1csdj 1991 CanLII 1746] (BC SC), (1991) BCJ No. 795 (BCSC){{perBCSC|Cowan J}}{{ats|2 to 3}}<br>  
+
''R v Payette'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1csdj 1991 CanLII 1746] (BC SC), (1991) BCJ No. 795 (BCSC){{perBCSC|Cowan J}}{{atsL|2 to 3|http://canlii.ca/t/1csdj#par2}}<br>  
 
''R v Barry'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1crq4 1991 CanLII 2377] (BC SC), (1991) BCJ No. 2212 (BCSC){{perBCSC|Cohen J}} <br>
 
''R v Barry'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1crq4 1991 CanLII 2377] (BC SC), (1991) BCJ No. 2212 (BCSC){{perBCSC|Cohen J}} <br>
 
''R v Bartello'', (1996) OJ No. 1000 (OCJ){{NOCANLII}}, appeal dismissed, (1997) OJ No. 2226 (ONCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/6hbw 1997 CanLII 1025] (ON CA){{TheCourtONCA}}, at 22<br>  
 
''R v Bartello'', (1996) OJ No. 1000 (OCJ){{NOCANLII}}, appeal dismissed, (1997) OJ No. 2226 (ONCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/6hbw 1997 CanLII 1025] (ON CA){{TheCourtONCA}}, at 22<br>  
''R v Isley'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1f5c8  1997 CanLII 1459] (BC SC), (1997) BCJ No. 2678 (BCSC){{perBCSC|Sigurdson J}}{{at|23}}<br>  
+
''R v Isley'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1f5c8  1997 CanLII 1459] (BC SC), (1997) BCJ No. 2678 (BCSC){{perBCSC|Sigurdson J}}{{atL|23|http://canlii.ca/t/1f5c8}}<br>  
 
''R v Cosentino'', [http://canlii.ca/t/220cp 2008 CanLII 68102] (ON SC), (2008) OJ No. 5263 (ONSC){{perONSC|Durno J}} at 54, 92-93<br>  
 
''R v Cosentino'', [http://canlii.ca/t/220cp 2008 CanLII 68102] (ON SC), (2008) OJ No. 5263 (ONSC){{perONSC|Durno J}} at 54, 92-93<br>  
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
Line 38: Line 38:
 
===Evidence===
 
===Evidence===
 
To prove any degree of impairment of ability to drive, the crown should present evidence of aberrant driving and consumption of alcohol. If evidence of driving is not available there is greater responsibility of establishing impairment through signs of the accused.<ref>
 
To prove any degree of impairment of ability to drive, the crown should present evidence of aberrant driving and consumption of alcohol. If evidence of driving is not available there is greater responsibility of establishing impairment through signs of the accused.<ref>
''R v Polturak'', Polturak, [http://canlii.ca/t/2dmxl 1988 ABCA 306] (CanLII), (1988), 90 A.R. 158, 61 Alta. L.R. (2d) 306 (C.A.){{perABCA|Stratton JA}}{{at|3}}<br>
+
''R v Polturak'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2dmxl 1988 ABCA 306] (CanLII), (1988), 90 A.R. 158, 61 Alta. L.R. (2d) 306 (C.A.){{perABCA|Stratton JA}}{{atL|3|http://canlii.ca/t/2dmxl}}<br>
 
''R v Beals'' (1956), 25 C.R. 85, 117 CCC 22 (NSCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/hv07r 1956 CanLII 534] (NS SC){{perNSSC|Doull J}}<br>
 
''R v Beals'' (1956), 25 C.R. 85, 117 CCC 22 (NSCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/hv07r 1956 CanLII 534] (NS SC){{perNSSC|Doull J}}<br>
 
''R v E(AL)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2b7fd 2009 SKCA 65] (CanLII), 359 Sask. R. 59{{perSKCA|Wilkinson JA}}<br>
 
''R v E(AL)'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2b7fd 2009 SKCA 65] (CanLII), 359 Sask. R. 59{{perSKCA|Wilkinson JA}}<br>
''R v Thomas'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fqmdh 2012 SKCA 30] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Caldwell JA}}{{at|13}}<br>
+
''R v Thomas'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fqmdh 2012 SKCA 30] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Caldwell JA}}{{atL|13|http://canlii.ca/t/fqmdh}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
 
Impairment cannot be inferred merely by the readings from the breath sample results.<ref>  see ''R v Letford'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fbjl 2000 CanLII 17024] (ON CA), [2000] OJ No 4841 (C.A.){{perONCA|Goudge JA}}</ref> A judge cannot take judicial notice that a certain reading necessarily means that the person is impaired.
 
Impairment cannot be inferred merely by the readings from the breath sample results.<ref>  see ''R v Letford'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1fbjl 2000 CanLII 17024] (ON CA), [2000] OJ No 4841 (C.A.){{perONCA|Goudge JA}}</ref> A judge cannot take judicial notice that a certain reading necessarily means that the person is impaired.
  
It is not necessary to prove that the driver intended to become impaired.<ref> ''R v Pomeroy'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1qd7h 2007 BCSC 142] (CanLII), [2007] BCJ No. 170 (S.C.){{perBCSC|Romilly J}}{{at|44}}<br>
+
It is not necessary to prove that the driver intended to become impaired.<ref>  
''R v Mavin'', [http://canlii.ca/t/26z71 1997 CanLII 14625] (NL CA), (1997), 154 Nfld & P.E.I.R. 242{{perNLCA|Marshall JA}}{{at|37}}
+
''R v Pomeroy'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1qd7h 2007 BCSC 142] (CanLII), [2007] BCJ No. 170 (S.C.){{perBCSC|Romilly J}}{{atL|44|http://canlii.ca/t/1qd7h}}<br>
 +
''R v Mavin'', [http://canlii.ca/t/26z71 1997 CanLII 14625] (NL CA), (1997), 154 Nfld & P.E.I.R. 242{{perNLCA|Marshall JA}}{{atL|37|http://canlii.ca/t/26z71}}
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
 
Proof of the ''actus reus'' alone is sufficient to create a presumption that the accused intended to operate while impaired.<ref>''R v King'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1tvrn 1962 CanLII 16] (SCC), [1962] SCR 746{{perSCC|Ritchie J}}<br>
 
Proof of the ''actus reus'' alone is sufficient to create a presumption that the accused intended to operate while impaired.<ref>''R v King'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1tvrn 1962 CanLII 16] (SCC), [1962] SCR 746{{perSCC|Ritchie J}}<br>
Line 58: Line 59:
 
; Odour of Alcohol Alone
 
; Odour of Alcohol Alone
 
The odour of alcohol alone is not sufficient evidence to support a finding of impairment. It is not criminal simply to consume alcohol and driving.<ref>
 
The odour of alcohol alone is not sufficient evidence to support a finding of impairment. It is not criminal simply to consume alcohol and driving.<ref>
''R v Uduma'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hzs3j 2019 ONSC 2350] (CanLII){{fix}}{{at|28}} ("The odour of alcohol alone is insufficient to support a finding of impairment")<br>
+
''R v Uduma'', [http://canlii.ca/t/hzs3j 2019 ONSC 2350] (CanLII){{fix}}{{atL|28|http://canlii.ca/t/hzs3j}} ("The odour of alcohol alone is insufficient to support a finding of impairment")<br>
''R v Landes'' (1997), 1997 CanLII 11314 (SK QB), 161 Sask. R. 305{{fix}}{{at|21}}<br>
+
''R v Landes'' (1997), [http://canlii.ca/t/1nt6t 1997 CanLII 11314] (SK QB), 161 Sask. R. 305{{perSKQB|Klebuc J}}{{at|21}}<br>
 
''R v Hawkins'', [2015] O.J. No. 3446 (C.J.){{fix}}{{At|38}}<br>
 
''R v Hawkins'', [2015] O.J. No. 3446 (C.J.){{fix}}{{At|38}}<br>
 
''R v Logan'', [2006] O.J. No. 2445 (S.C.){{fix}}<br>
 
''R v Logan'', [2006] O.J. No. 2445 (S.C.){{fix}}<br>
''R v Martin'', 2016 ONCJ 799 (CanLII){{fix}}{{Ats|41 to 42}}<br>  
+
''R v Martin'', [http://canlii.ca/t/gxcps 2016 ONCJ 799] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Bourgeois J}}{{AtsL|41 to 42|http://canlii.ca/t/gxcps#par41}}<br>  
 
''R v Lohrer''{{fix}}{{at|2}}<br>
 
''R v Lohrer''{{fix}}{{at|2}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
Line 81: Line 82:
 
''R v Quenneville'', 2009 ONCA 325 (CanLII){{fix}}<br>
 
''R v Quenneville'', 2009 ONCA 325 (CanLII){{fix}}<br>
 
''R v Brode'', 2012 ONCA 140 (CanLII), 109 O.R. (3d) 481{{fix}}{{Ats|57-63}}<br>
 
''R v Brode'', 2012 ONCA 140 (CanLII), 109 O.R. (3d) 481{{fix}}{{Ats|57-63}}<br>
''R v Bijelic'', 2008 CanLII 17564 (ON SC), [2008] O.J. No. 1911 (S.C.){{fix}}{{At|31}}<br>
+
''R v Bijelic'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1wnmf 2008 CanLII 17564] (ON SC), [2008] O.J. No. 1911 (S.C.){{perONSC|Hill J}}{{AtL|31|http://canlii.ca/t/1wnmf}}<br>
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
  
Line 88: Line 89:
 
==Physical Signs of Impairment==
 
==Physical Signs of Impairment==
 
Factors to consider include:<ref>
 
Factors to consider include:<ref>
See ''R v Landes'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1nt6t 1997 CanLII 11314] (SK QB), [1997] SJ 785 (SKQB){{perSKQB|Klebuc J}}{{at|16}}
+
See ''R v Landes'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1nt6t 1997 CanLII 11314] (SK QB), [1997] SJ 785 (SKQB){{perSKQB|Klebuc J}}{{atL|16|http://canlii.ca/t/1nt6t}}
 
</ref>
 
</ref>
 
# erratic or abnormal driving
 
# erratic or abnormal driving

Revision as of 02:25, 13 August 2019

General Principles

See also: Proof of Impairment by Drugs (Prior to December 13, 2018)

The Crown need only prove any degree of impairment of the person's ability to drive, not matter how great or minor. [1]

Impairment refers to the physiological effect of alcohol upon the mind. This is separate from intoxication, which refers to the observable physical signs of impairment. [2]

Note, however, impairment is relative to a particular task. It is not simply a degree of general impairment but rather the accused's ability to drive is impaired and that the impairment is caused by alcohol or a drug.[3] The judge should not assume that mere impairment of any functional ability is equivalent to impairment by alcohol.[4]

Where fatigue is combined with alcohol, the only issue is whether the alcohol was a contributing factor to the impairment.[5]

Burden and Standard of Proof

Impairment must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.[6]

  1. R v Stellato, 1993 CanLII 3375 (ON CA), (1993), 78 CCC (3d) 380 (Ont. C.A.), per Labrosse JA; affirmed 90 CCC (3d) 160 (SCC), 1994 CanLII 94 (SCC), per Lamer CJ
    R v Brannan, 1999 BCCA 669 (CanLII), (1999), 140 CCC (3d) 394, per Donald JA ("the test for driving while impaired contrary to s. 253(a) is any impairment")
    see also R v Pijogge, 2012 NLTD(G) 94, 2012 CanLII 35597 (NL SCTD), per Stack J
    R v White, 2004 NLSCTD 9 (CanLII), (2004), 50 M.V.R. (4th) 177 (NLSC), per LeBlanc J
    R v Loveman, 2005 NLTD 51 (CanLII), (2005), 15 M.V.R. (5th) 280 (NLSC), per Schwartz J
    R v Thompson, 2012 ONCJ 377 (CanLII), per Nadel J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/frr33
  2. See R v Andrews, 1996 CanLII 6628 (AB CA), [1996] AJ No 8 (ABCA), per Conrad JA in the analysis section discussing this difference
  3. As observed in R v Raven, [1999] OJ No 48 (Gen. Div.)(*no CanLII links) , per Durno J, at paras 47 and 50: it is incorrect to read Stellato as requiring only proof of a slight degree of impairment by alcohol as opposed to a slight degree of impairment of one’s ability to operate a motor vehicle as a result of the consumption of alcohol
  4. Andrews, supra, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1nnxf (Courts "must not fail to recognize the fine but crucial distinction between ‘slight impairment’ generally, and ‘slight impairment of one’s ability to operate a motor vehicle.")
    R v Sampson, 2009 NSSC 191 (CanLII), [2009] NSJ No. 280, per Beveridge J
  5. R v Christopher, (1982) BCJ No. 2008 (BCCA)(*no CanLII links) , at para 2-5
    R v Pelletier, 1989 CanLII 4823 (SK QB), (1989) SJ No. 493 (Sask. Q.B.), per Batten J
    R v Payette, 1991 CanLII 1746 (BC SC), (1991) BCJ No. 795 (BCSC), per Cowan J, at to 3#parhttp://canlii.ca/t/1csdj#par2 paras http://canlii.ca/t/1csdj#par2{{{3}}}
    R v Barry, 1991 CanLII 2377 (BC SC), (1991) BCJ No. 2212 (BCSC), per Cohen J
    R v Bartello, (1996) OJ No. 1000 (OCJ)(*no CanLII links) , appeal dismissed, (1997) OJ No. 2226 (ONCA), 1997 CanLII 1025 (ON CA), per curiam, at 22
    R v Isley, 1997 CanLII 1459 (BC SC), (1997) BCJ No. 2678 (BCSC), per Sigurdson J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1f5c8
    R v Cosentino, 2008 CanLII 68102 (ON SC), (2008) OJ No. 5263 (ONSC), per Durno J at 54, 92-93
  6. R v Czarnecki, 2000 MBQB 42 (CanLII), 2000 Carswell Man. 215 (Q. B.), per Hamilton J
    R v Stellato, 1994 CanLII 94 (SCC), [1994] 2 S. C. R. 478, per Lamer CJ

Evidence

To prove any degree of impairment of ability to drive, the crown should present evidence of aberrant driving and consumption of alcohol. If evidence of driving is not available there is greater responsibility of establishing impairment through signs of the accused.[1]

Impairment cannot be inferred merely by the readings from the breath sample results.[2] A judge cannot take judicial notice that a certain reading necessarily means that the person is impaired.

It is not necessary to prove that the driver intended to become impaired.[3] Proof of the actus reus alone is sufficient to create a presumption that the accused intended to operate while impaired.[4]

Where the evidence of impairment is equivocal on the totality of evidence, it would be dangerous to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that there was impairment.[5] This would include circumstantial evidence alone or equivocal evidence of impairment that shows only a “slight deviation from normal conduct”.[6]

Odour of Alcohol Alone

The odour of alcohol alone is not sufficient evidence to support a finding of impairment. It is not criminal simply to consume alcohol and driving.[7] The judge instead must consider the "totality of the evidence" to determine impairment.[8]

Circumstances and Timing of Observations

Observations of an accused made during their compelled participation in an investigation, such as during pullover investigative detention, cannot be admissible for the purpose of proving impairment as it in only admissible for proving the officer's grounds.[9]

Observations While Performing Sobriety Test

Any observations made while an accused is performing a mandatory sobriety test cannot be used to prove impairment because it is a compelled and violates the rule against self-criminating evidence.[10]

  1. R v Polturak, 1988 ABCA 306 (CanLII), (1988), 90 A.R. 158, 61 Alta. L.R. (2d) 306 (C.A.), per Stratton JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/2dmxl
    R v Beals (1956), 25 C.R. 85, 117 CCC 22 (NSCA), 1956 CanLII 534 (NS SC), per Doull J
    R v E(AL), 2009 SKCA 65 (CanLII), 359 Sask. R. 59, per Wilkinson JA
    R v Thomas, 2012 SKCA 30 (CanLII), per Caldwell JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/fqmdh
  2. see R v Letford, 2000 CanLII 17024 (ON CA), [2000] OJ No 4841 (C.A.), per Goudge JA
  3. R v Pomeroy, 2007 BCSC 142 (CanLII), [2007] BCJ No. 170 (S.C.), per Romilly J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1qd7h
    R v Mavin, 1997 CanLII 14625 (NL CA), (1997), 154 Nfld & P.E.I.R. 242, per Marshall JA, at para http://canlii.ca/t/26z71
  4. R v King, 1962 CanLII 16 (SCC), [1962] SCR 746, per Ritchie J
    R v Lamha, 2011 ABPC 303 (CanLII), per Rosborough J -- impaired by a mix of drugs
  5. R v Peterson, 2009 ONCJ 61 (CanLII), [2009] OJ No. 671, per Green J at 35 citing R v Andrews, 1996 CanLII 6628 (AB CA), per Conrad JA
  6. Andrews, ibid.
  7. R v Uduma, 2019 ONSC 2350 (CanLII)(complete citation pending), at para http://canlii.ca/t/hzs3j ("The odour of alcohol alone is insufficient to support a finding of impairment")
    R v Landes (1997), 1997 CanLII 11314 (SK QB), 161 Sask. R. 305, per Klebuc J, at para 21
    R v Hawkins, [2015] O.J. No. 3446 (C.J.)(complete citation pending), at para 38
    R v Logan, [2006] O.J. No. 2445 (S.C.)(complete citation pending)
    R v Martin, 2016 ONCJ 799 (CanLII), per Bourgeois J, at to 42#parhttp://canlii.ca/t/gxcps#par41 paras http://canlii.ca/t/gxcps#par41{{{3}}}
    R v Lohrer(complete citation pending), at para 2
  8. Uduma, supra, at para 28 R v Andrews,(complete citation pending), at para 28
  9. R v Phipps, 2010 ABQB 661 (CanLII), per Moreau J
  10. R v Uduma, 2019 ONSC 2350 (CanLII)(complete citation pending), at para 36 ("An observation made while an accused is taking a sobriety test is inadmissible at trial because the accused has been compelled to participate in activity that produces self-incriminating evidence")
    R v Milne (1996), 1996 CanLII 508 (ON CA), 28 O.R. (3d) 577 (C.A.)(complete citation pending), at paras 40-47, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [1996] S.C.C.A. No. 353
    R v Quenneville, 2009 ONCA 325 (CanLII)(complete citation pending)
    R v Brode, 2012 ONCA 140 (CanLII), 109 O.R. (3d) 481(complete citation pending), at paras 57-63
    R v Bijelic, 2008 CanLII 17564 (ON SC), [2008] O.J. No. 1911 (S.C.), per Hill J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1wnmf

Physical Signs of Impairment

Factors to consider include:[1]

  1. erratic or abnormal driving
  2. blood-shot or watery eyes
  3. flushed face
  4. odour of alcoholic beverage
  5. slurred speech
  6. a deterioration of the accused’s judgement, attention, or comprehension
  7. a loss of motor co-ordination or control,
  8. increased reaction times,
  9. diminished sensory perceptions, or
  10. inappropriate or abusive behaviour

Observations of impairment:

Odour of alcohol Faint
moderate
strong

beer
spirits
wine
Attitude excited
combative
polite
talkative
indifferent
profane
carefree
insulting
sleepy
cooperative
Eyes normal
bloodshot
glossy
lacking focus
Speech normal
stuttering
slurred
rambling
thick-tongued
Walk normal
swaying
staggering
falling
Balance normal
swaying
sagging
Unusual symptoms none
crying
belching
vomiting
hiccuping
Clothes orderly
disorderly
soiled
  1. See R v Landes, 1997 CanLII 11314 (SK QB), [1997] SJ 785 (SKQB), per Klebuc J, at para http://canlii.ca/t/1nt6t

Field Sobriety Tests

See also: Forthwith Under Section 254

254.
...

Testing for presence of alcohol or a drug

(2) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol or a drug in their body and that the person has, within the preceding three hours, operated a motor vehicle or vessel, operated or assisted in the operation of an aircraft or railway equipment or had the care or control of a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment, whether it was in motion or not, the peace officer may, by demand, require the person to comply with paragraph (a), in the case of a drug, or with either or both of paragraphs (a) and (b), in the case of alcohol:

(a) to perform forthwith physical coordination tests prescribed by regulation to enable the peace officer to determine whether a demand may be made under subsection (3) or (3.1) and, if necessary, to accompany the peace officer for that purpose; and
(b) to provide forthwith a sample of breath that, in the peace officer’s opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made by means of an approved screening device and, if necessary, to accompany the peace officer for that purpose.

...
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 254; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 36, c. 1 (4th Supp.), ss. 14, 18(F), c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 60; 1999, c. 32, s. 2(Preamble); 2008, c. 6, s. 19.


CCC

Section 254(2.1) permits the police to make a video recording of the test:

254...

Video recording

(2.1) For greater certainty, a peace officer may make a video recording of a performance of the physical coordination tests referred to in paragraph (2)(a).
...
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 254; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 36, c. 1 (4th Supp.), ss. 14, 18(F), c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 60; 1999, c. 32, s. 2(Preamble); 2008, c. 6, s. 19.


CCC

Evaluation for drugs has similar requirements as 254(2) and (2.1) found in (3.1) and (3.2). [1]

See Also