View source for History of Conveyance Offences

{{LevelOne}}{{HeaderOffencesMV}}
{{HeaderHistory}}
==Overview==
The predecessor to alcohol-related driving offences is the summary offence of "driving while intoxicated" initially found in the 1921 Criminal Code.

==Chronology==
In 1921, inotixcated driving first became a criminal offence by the enactment of s 285c. The offence had a minimum penalty of 7 days jail and a maximum penalty of 30 days with no prior record. With prior conviction meant a minimum of 3 months and maximum of 12 months.<ref>
See ''An Act to Amend the Criminal Code'', [[List of Criminal Code Amendments (1892 to 1984)|SC 1921, c 25, s 3]]<br>
{{CanLIIRPC|McRae v McLaughlin Motor Car Company|gddrd|1926 CanLII 221 (AB QB)|1 DLR 372}}{{perABQB-H|Boyle J}} at p. 379 (DLR)<br>
</ref>

In 1925, the offence was expanded to include drugs and to include "care and control."<ref>
see  [[List of Criminal Code Amendments (1892 to 1984)|SC 1925, c 38, s 5]].
</ref>

In 1927, there was an additional offence of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and failing to remain at the scene of accident and “joy riding”. Section 285c was moved to 285.4.<Ref>
see  [[List of Criminal Code Amendments (1892 to 1984)|''An Act Respecting the Criminal Law'', SC 1927 c 36]]
</ref>

In 1930, the offence was made into a hybrid offence.

In 1947, a presumption of care and control where the accused was found in the driver's seat was created. This is now found in s. 258(1)(a).

In 1951, the offence was split into two separate offences of "impaired driving" and "care and control" 

In 1969, the additional offence of driving while "over 80" was created as well all drivers were required to give a breath sample on demand.

In 1976, the penalties for "over 80" and refusal were made the same.

On July 2, 2008, Bill C-2 came into force,<ref>[[List of Criminal Code Amendments|Tackling Violent Crime Act, SC 2008 c.6]]</ref>. It made the following changes:
* amending s. 258(1)(c) and (d), removing references to “evidence to the contrary” and added “conclusive proof”. The effect of this was to remove the effect of s. 25 of the Interpretation Act which permitted the defence to present “evidence to the contrary” once s. 258(1)(c) is established;
* gave the police power to ''demand'' that a driver perform a standard field sobriety test for both alcohol and drugs;
* altered the requirements for "reasonable suspicion" under s. 254(2) for a ASD demand. The new version requires the additional component that the officer suspect that the driver was in care and control of the vehicle within the preceding 2 hours;
* added s. 254.1 which permits the creation of regulations.

{{reflist|2}}

==Changes in Text==
===Section 253 to 255 (2000 to 2008)===
{{quotation1|
; Operation while impaired
253. Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,
:(a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or
:(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.

R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 253; R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, s. 36, c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 59.
|[http://canlii.ca/t/hzbv#sec253 CCC]
}}

{{quotation1|
; Definitions
254 (1) In this section and sections 255 to 258,
<br>
“analyst” means a person designated by the Attorney General as an analyst for the purposes of section 258;
<br>
“approved container” means
:(a) in respect of breath samples, a container of a kind that is designed to receive a sample of the breath of a person for analysis and is approved as suitable for the purposes of section 258 by order of the Attorney General of Canada, and
:(b) in respect of blood samples, a container of a kind that is designed to receive a sample of the blood of a person for analysis and is approved as suitable for the purposes of section 258 by order of the Attorney General of Canada;

<br>
“approved instrument” means an instrument of a kind that is designed to receive and make an analysis of a sample of the breath of a person in order to measure the concentration of alcohol in the blood of that person and is approved as suitable for the purposes of section 258 by order of the Attorney General of Canada;
<br>
“approved screening device” means a device of a kind that is designed to ascertain the presence of alcohol in the blood of a person and that is approved for the purposes of this section by order of the Attorney General of Canada;
<br>
“qualified medical practitioner” means a person duly qualified by provincial law to practise medicine;
<br>
“qualified technician” means,
:(a) in respect of breath samples, a person designated by the Attorney General as being qualified to operate an approved instrument, and
:(b) in respect of blood samples, any person or person of a class of persons designated by the Attorney General as being qualified to take samples of blood for the purposes of this section and sections 256 and 258.

; Testing for presence of alcohol in the blood
(2) Where a peace officer reasonably suspects that a person who is operating a motor vehicle or vessel or operating or assisting in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or who has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel or aircraft or of railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not, has alcohol in the person’s body, the peace officer may, by demand made to that person, require the person to provide forthwith such a sample of breath as in the opinion of the peace officer is necessary to enable a proper analysis of the breath to be made by means of an approved screening device and, where necessary, to accompany the peace officer for the purpose of enabling such a sample of breath to be taken.
<br>
; Samples of breath or blood where reasonable belief of commission of offence
(3) Where a peace officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is committing, or at any time within the preceding three hours has committed, as a result of the consumption of alcohol, an offence under section 253, the peace officer may, by demand made to that person forthwith or as soon as practicable, require that person to provide then or as soon thereafter as is practicable
:(a) such samples of the person’s breath as in the opinion of a qualified technician, or
:(b) where the peace officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that, by reason of any physical condition of the person,
::(i) the person may be incapable of providing a sample of his breath, or
::(ii) it would be impracticable to obtain a sample of the person’s breath,

such samples of the person’s blood, under the conditions referred to in subsection (4), as in the opinion of the qualified medical practitioner or qualified technician taking the samples are necessary to enable proper analysis to be made in order to determine the concentration, if any, of alcohol in the person’s blood, and to accompany the peace officer for the purpose of enabling such samples to be taken.

; Exception
(4) Samples of blood may only be taken from a person pursuant to a demand made by a peace officer under subsection (3) if the samples are taken by or under the direction of a qualified medical practitioner and the qualified medical practitioner is satisfied that the taking of those samples would not endanger the life or health of the person.
<br>
; Failure or refusal to provide sample
(5) Every one commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with a demand made to him by a peace officer under this section.
<br>
; Only one conviction for failure to comply with demand
(6) A person who is convicted of an offence committed under subsection (5) for a failure or refusal to comply with a demand made under subsection (2) or paragraph (3)(a) or (b) in respect of any transaction may not be convicted of another offence committed under subsection (5) in respect of the same transaction.
<br>
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 254; R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, s. 36, c. 1 (4th Supp.), ss. 14, 18(F), c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 60; {{LegHistory90s|1999, c. 32}}, s. 2(Preamble).
|[http://canlii.ca/t/hzbv#sec254 CCC]
}}

{{quotation1|
; Punishment
255 (1) Every one who commits an offence under section 253 or 254 is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable,
:(a) whether the offence is prosecuted by indictment or punishable on summary conviction, to the following minimum punishment, namely,
::(i) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than six hundred dollars,
::(ii) for a second offence, to imprisonment for not less than fourteen days, and
::(iii) for each subsequent offence, to imprisonment for not less than ninety days;
:(b) where the offence is prosecuted by indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; and
:(c) where the offence is punishable on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

; Impaired driving causing bodily harm
(2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph 253(a) and thereby causes bodily harm to any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
<br>
; Impaired driving causing death
(3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph 253(a) and thereby causes the death of any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
<br>
; Previous convictions
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence committed under paragraph 253(a) or (b) or subsection 254(5), that person shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be convicted for a second or subsequent offence, as the case may be, if the person has previously been convicted of
:(a) an offence committed under any of those provisions;
:(b) an offence under subsection (2) or (3); or
:(c) an offence under section 250, 251, 252, 253, 259 or 260 or subsection 258(4) of this Act as this Act read immediately before the coming into force of this subsection.

; Conditional discharge

<nowiki>*</nowiki>(5) Notwithstanding subsection 730(1), a court may, instead of convicting a person of an offence committed under section 253, after hearing medical or other evidence, if it considers that the person is in need of curative treatment in relation to his consumption of alcohol or drugs and that it would not be contrary to the public interest, by order direct that the person be discharged under section 730 on the conditions prescribed in a probation order, including a condition respecting the person’s attendance for curative treatment in relation to that consumption of alcohol or drugs.

<nowiki>*</nowiki>[Note: In force in the Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and Alberta and in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, see SI/85-211 and SI/88-24.]

R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 255; R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, s. 36; R.S., 1985, c. 1 (4th Supp.), s. 18(F); {{LegHistory90s|1995, c. 22}}, s. 18; {{LegHistory90s|1999, c. 32}}, s. 3(Preamble); {{LegHistory00s|2000, c. 25}}, s. 2.

|[http://canlii.ca/t/hzbv#sec255 CCC]
}}

===Section 253 to 255 (2008 to 2018)===

{{quotation1|
;Operation while impaired
253 (1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,
:(a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or
:(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.
;For greater certainty
(2) For greater certainty, the reference to impairment by alcohol or a drug in paragraph (1)(a) includes impairment by a combination of alcohol and a drug.
<br>
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 253; R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, s. 36, c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 59; {{LegHistory00s|2008, c. 6}}, s. 18.
| [http://canlii.ca/t/532qx#sec253 CCC]
}}

{{quotation1|
;Definitions
254 (1) In this section and sections 254.1 to 258.1,

analyst means a person designated by the Attorney General as an analyst for the purposes of section 258; (analyste)

approved container means
:(a) in respect of breath samples, a container of a kind that is designed to receive a sample of the breath of a person for analysis and is approved as suitable for the purposes of section 258 by order of the Attorney General of Canada, and
:(b) in respect of blood samples, a container of a kind that is designed to receive a sample of the blood of a person for analysis and is approved as suitable for the purposes of section 258 by order of the Attorney General of Canada; (contenant approuvé)

approved instrument means an instrument of a kind that is designed to receive and make an analysis of a sample of the breath of a person in order to measure the concentration of alcohol in the blood of that person and is approved as suitable for the purposes of section 258 by order of the Attorney General of Canada; (alcootest approuvé)

approved screening device means a device of a kind that is designed to ascertain the presence of alcohol in the blood of a person and that is approved for the purposes of this section by order of the Attorney General of Canada; (appareil de détection approuvé)

evaluating officer means a peace officer who is qualified under the regulations to conduct evaluations under subsection (3.1); (agent évaluateur)

qualified medical practitioner means a person duly qualified by provincial law to practise medicine; (médecin qualifié)

qualified technician means,

(a) in respect of breath samples, a person designated by the Attorney General as being qualified to operate an approved instrument, and

(b) in respect of blood samples, any person or person of a class of persons designated by the Attorney General as being qualified to take samples of blood for the purposes of this section and sections 256 and 258. (technicien qualifié)

;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.

;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).

;Samples of breath or blood
(3) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is committing, or at any time within the preceding three hours has committed, an offence under section 253 as a result of the consumption of alcohol, the peace officer may, by demand made as soon as practicable, require the person
:(a) to provide, as soon as practicable,
::(i) samples of breath that, in a qualified technician’s opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made to determine the concentration, if any, of alcohol in the person’s blood, or
::(ii) if the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that, because of their physical condition, the person may be incapable of providing a sample of breath or it would be impracticable to obtain a sample of breath, samples of blood that, in the opinion of the qualified medical practitioner or qualified technician taking the samples, will enable a proper analysis to be made to determine the concentration, if any, of alcohol in the person’s blood; and
:(b) if necessary, to accompany the peace officer for that purpose.

;Evaluation
(3.1) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is committing, or at any time within the preceding three hours has committed, an offence under paragraph 253(1)(a) as a result of the consumption of a drug or of a combination of alcohol and a drug, the peace officer may, by demand made as soon as practicable, require the person to submit, as soon as practicable, to an evaluation conducted by an evaluating officer to determine whether the person’s ability to operate a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug, and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose.

;Video recording
(3.2) For greater certainty, a peace officer may make a video recording of an evaluation referred to in subsection (3.1).

;Testing for presence of alcohol
(3.3) If the evaluating officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has alcohol in their body and if a demand was not made under paragraph (2)(b) or subsection (3), the evaluating officer may, by demand made as soon as practicable, require the person to provide, as soon as practicable, a sample of breath that, in the evaluating officer’s opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made by means of an approved instrument.

;Samples of bodily substances
(3.4) If, on completion of the evaluation, the evaluating officer has reasonable grounds to believe, based on the evaluation, that the person’s ability to operate a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug, the evaluating officer may, by demand made as soon as practicable, require the person to provide, as soon as practicable,
:(a) a sample of either oral fluid or urine that, in the evaluating officer’s opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made to determine whether the person has a drug in their body; or
:(b) samples of blood that, in the opinion of the qualified medical practitioner or qualified technician taking the samples, will enable a proper analysis to be made to determine whether the person has a drug in their body.
;Condition
(4) Samples of blood may be taken from a person under subsection (3) or (3.4) only by or under the direction of a qualified medical practitioner who is satisfied that taking the samples would not endanger the person’s life or health.
;Failure or refusal to comply with demand
(5) Everyone commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with a demand made under this section.
;Only one determination of guilt
(6) A person who is convicted of an offence under subsection (5) for a failure or refusal to comply with a demand may not be convicted of another offence under that subsection in respect of the same transaction.

R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 254; R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, s. 36, c. 1 (4th Supp.), ss. 14, 18(F), c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 60; {{LegHistory90s|1999, c. 32}}, s. 2(Preamble); {{LegHistory00s|2008, c. 6}}, s. 19.

;Regulations
254.1 (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations
:(a) respecting the qualifications and training of evaluating officers;
:(b) prescribing the physical coordination tests to be conducted under paragraph 254(2)(a); and
:(c) prescribing the tests to be conducted and procedures to be followed during an evaluation under subsection 254(3.1).

;Incorporated material
(2) A regulation may incorporate any material by reference either as it exists on a specified date or as amended from time to time.

;Incorporated material is not a regulation
(3) For greater certainty, material does not become a regulation for the purposes of the Statutory Instruments Act because it is incorporated by reference.

{{LegHistory00s|2008, c. 6}}, s. 20.
|
}}
{{quotation1|
;Punishment
255 (1) Every one who commits an offence under section 253 or 254 is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable,
:(a) whether the offence is prosecuted by indictment or punishable on summary conviction, to the following minimum punishment, namely,
::(i) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than $1,000,
::(ii) for a second offence, to imprisonment for not less than 30 days, and
::(iii) for each subsequent offence, to imprisonment for not less than 120 days;
:(b) where the offence is prosecuted by indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; and
:(c) if the offence is punishable on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months.

;Impaired driving causing bodily harm
(2) Everyone who commits an offence under paragraph 253(1)(a) and causes bodily harm to another person as a result is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

;Blood alcohol level over legal limit — bodily harm
(2.1) Everyone who, while committing an offence under paragraph 253(1)(b), causes an accident resulting in bodily harm to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

;Failure or refusal to provide sample — bodily harm
(2.2) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection 254(5) and, at the time of committing the offence, knows or ought to know that their operation of the motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, their assistance in the operation of the aircraft or railway equipment or their care or control of the motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment caused an accident resulting in bodily harm to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

;Impaired driving causing death
(3) Everyone who commits an offence under paragraph 253(1)(a) and causes the death of another person as a result is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

;Blood alcohol level over legal limit — death
(3.1) Everyone who, while committing an offence under paragraph 253(1)(b), causes an accident resulting in the death of another person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

;Failure or refusal to provide sample — death
(3.2) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection 254(5) and, at the time of committing the offence, knows or ought to know that their operation of the motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, their assistance in the operation of the aircraft or railway equipment or their care or control of the motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment caused an accident resulting in the death of another person, or in bodily harm to another person whose death ensues, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

;Interpretation
(3.3) For greater certainty, everyone who is liable to the punishment described in any of subsections (2) to (3.2) is also liable to the minimum punishment described in paragraph (1)(a).

;Previous convictions
(4) A person who is convicted of an offence committed under section 253 or subsection 254(5) is, for the purposes of this Act, deemed to be convicted for a second or subsequent offence, as the case may be, if they have previously been convicted of
:(a) an offence committed under either of those provisions;
:(b) an offence under subsection (2) or (3); or
:(c) an offence under section 250, 251, 252, 253, 259 or 260 or subsection 258(4) of this Act as this Act read immediately before the coming into force of this subsection.

;Conditional discharge
*(5) Notwithstanding subsection 730(1), a court may, instead of convicting a person of an offence committed under section 253, after hearing medical or other evidence, if it considers that the person is in need of curative treatment in relation to his consumption of alcohol or drugs and that it would not be contrary to the public interest, by order direct that the person be discharged under section 730 on the conditions prescribed in a probation order, including a condition respecting the person’s attendance for curative treatment in relation to that consumption of alcohol or drugs.

*[Note: In force in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and Alberta and in the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and the Nunavut Territory, see SI/85-211 and SI/88-24.]

R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 255; R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, s. 36; R.S., 1985, c. 1 (4th Supp.), s. 18(F); {{LegHistory90s|1995, c. 22}}, s. 18; {{LegHistory90s|1999, c. 32}}, s. 3(Preamble); {{LegHistory00s|2000, c. 25}}, s. 2; {{LegHistory00s|2008, c. 6}}, s. 21, c. 18, ss. 7, 45.2.
|
}}

===Section 258 (1997 to 2008)===
{{quotation1|
; Proceedings under section 255258 (1) In any proceedings under subsection 255(1) in respect of an offence committed under section 253 or in any proceedings under subsection 255(2) or (3),
:(a) where it is proved that the accused occupied the seat or position ordinarily occupied by a person who operates a motor vehicle, vessel or aircraft or any railway equipment or who assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment, the accused shall be deemed to have had the care or control of the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, as the case may be, unless the accused establishes that the accused did not occupy that seat or position for the purpose of setting the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment in motion or assisting in the operation of the aircraft or railway equipment, as the case may be;
:(b) the result of an analysis of a sample of the breath or blood of the accused (other than a sample taken pursuant to a demand made under subsection 254(3)) or of the urine or other bodily substance of the accused may be admitted in evidence notwithstanding that, before the accused gave the sample, he was not warned that he need not give the sample or that the result of the analysis of the sample might be used in evidence;
:(c) where samples of the breath of the accused have been taken pursuant to a demand made under subsection 254(3), if
::(i) [Not in force]
::(ii) each sample was taken as soon as practicable after the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed and, in the case of the first sample, not later than two hours after that time, with an interval of at least fifteen minutes between the times when the samples were taken,
::(iii) each sample was received from the accused directly into an approved container or into an approved instrument operated by a qualified technician, and
::(iv) an analysis of each sample was made by means of an approved instrument operated by a qualified technician,

evidence of the results of the analyses so made is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the concentration of alcohol in the blood of the accused at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed was, where the results of the analyses are the same, the concentration determined by the analyses and, where the results of the analyses are different, the lowest of the concentrations determined by the analyses;
:(d) where a sample of the blood of the accused has been taken pursuant to a demand made under subsection 254(3) or otherwise with the consent of the accused or pursuant to a warrant issued under section 256, if
::(i) at the time the sample was taken, the person taking the sample took an additional sample of the blood of the accused and one of the samples was retained, to permit an analysis thereof to be made by or on behalf of the accused and, in the case where the accused makes a request within six months from the taking of the samples, one of the samples was ordered to be released pursuant to subsection (4),
::(ii) both samples referred to in subparagraph (i) were taken as soon as practicable after the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed and in any event not later than two hours after that time,
::(iii) both samples referred to in subparagraph (i) were taken by a qualified medical practitioner or a qualified technician under the direction of a qualified medical practitioner,
::(iv) both samples referred to in subparagraph (i) were received from the accused directly into, or placed directly into, approved containers that were subsequently sealed, and
::(v) an analysis was made by an analyst of at least one of the samples that was contained in a sealed approved container,

evidence of the result of the analysis is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the concentration of alcohol in the blood of the accused at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed was the concentration determined by the analysis or, where more than one sample was analyzed and the results of the analyses are the same, the concentration determined by the analyses and, where the results of the analyses are different, the lowest of the concentrations determined by the analyses;
:(d.1) where samples of the breath of the accused or a sample of the blood of the accused have been taken as described in paragraph (c) or (d) under the conditions described therein and the results of the analyses show a concentration of alcohol in blood exceeding eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood, evidence of the result of the analyses is, in the absence of evidence tending to show that the concentration of alcohol in the blood of the accused at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed did not exceed eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood, proof that the concentration of alcohol in the blood of the accused at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed exceeded eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood;
:(e) a certificate of an analyst stating that the analyst has made an analysis of a sample of the blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance of the accused and stating the result of that analysis is evidence of the facts alleged in the certificate without proof of the signature or the official character of the person appearing to have signed the certificate;
:(f) a certificate of an analyst stating that the analyst has made an analysis of a sample of an alcohol standard that is identified in the certificate and intended for use with an approved instrument and that the sample of the standard analyzed by the analyst was found to be suitable for use with an approved instrument, is evidence that the alcohol standard so identified is suitable for use with an approved instrument without proof of the signature or the official character of the person appearing to have signed the certificate;
:(g) where samples of the breath of the accused have been taken pursuant to a demand made under subsection 254(3), a certificate of a qualified technician stating
::(i) that the analysis of each of the samples has been made by means of an approved instrument operated by the technician and ascertained by the technician to be in proper working order by means of an alcohol standard, identified in the certificate, that is suitable for use with an approved instrument,
::(ii) the results of the analyses so made, and
::(iii) if the samples were taken by the technician,
:::(A) [Not in force]
:::(B) the time when and place where each sample and any specimen described in clause (A) was taken, and
:::(C) that each sample was received from the accused directly into an approved container or into an approved instrument operated by the technician,

is evidence of the facts alleged in the certificate without proof of the signature or the official character of the person appearing to have signed the certificate;
:(h) where a sample of the blood of the accused has been taken pursuant to a demand made under subsection 254(3) or otherwise with the consent of the accused or pursuant to a warrant issued under section 256,
::(i) a certificate of a qualified medical practitioner stating that
:::(A) the medical practitioner took the sample and that before the sample was taken he was of the opinion that the taking of blood samples from the accused would not endanger the life or health of the accused and, in the case of a demand made pursuant to a warrant issued pursuant to section 256, that by reason of any physical or mental condition of the accused that resulted from the consumption of alcohol, the accident or any other occurrence related to or resulting from the accident, the accused was unable to consent to the taking of his blood,
:::(B) at the time the sample was taken, an additional sample of the blood of the accused was taken to permit analysis of one of the samples to be made by or on behalf of the accused,
:::(C) the time when and place where both samples referred to in clause (B) were taken, and
:::(D) both samples referred to in clause (B) were received from the accused directly into, or placed directly into, approved containers that were subsequently sealed and that are identified in the certificate,
::(ii) a certificate of a qualified medical practitioner stating that the medical practitioner caused the sample to be taken by a qualified technician under his direction and that before the sample was taken the qualified medical practitioner was of the opinion referred to in clause (i)(A), or
::(iii) a certificate of a qualified technician stating that the technician took the sample and the facts referred to in clauses (i)(B) to (D)

is evidence of the facts alleged in the certificate without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed the certificate; and
:(i) a certificate of an analyst stating that the analyst has made an analysis of a sample of the blood of the accused that was contained in a sealed approved container identified in the certificate, the date on which and place where the sample was analyzed and the result of that analysis is evidence of the facts alleged in the certificate without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed it.

; No obligation to give sample except as required under section 254
(2) No person is required to give a sample of urine or other bodily substance for analysis for the purposes of this section except breath or blood as required under section 254, and evidence that a person failed or refused to give such a sample or that such a sample was not taken is not admissible nor shall such a failure or refusal or the fact that a sample was not taken be the subject of comment by any person in the proceedings.
<br>
; Evidence of failure to comply with demand
(3) In any proceedings under subsection 255(1) in respect of an offence committed under paragraph 253(a) or in any proceedings under subsection 255(2) or (3), evidence that the accused, without reasonable excuse, failed or refused to comply with a demand made to him by a peace officer under section 254 is admissible and the court may draw an inference therefrom adverse to the accused.
<br>
; Release of specimen for testing
(4) A judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a court of criminal jurisdiction shall, on the summary application of the accused made within six months from the day on which samples of the blood of the accused were taken, order the release of one of the samples for the purpose of an examination or analysis thereof, subject to such terms as appear to be necessary or desirable to ensure the safeguarding of the sample and its preservation for use in any proceedings in respect of which it was retained.
<br>
; Testing blood for presence of drugs
(5) Where a sample of blood of an accused has been taken pursuant to a demand made under subsection 254(3) or otherwise with the consent of the accused or pursuant to a warrant issued under section 256, the sample may be tested for the presence of drugs in the blood of the accused.
<br>
; Attendance and right to cross-examine
(6) A party against whom a certificate described in paragraph (1)(e), (f), (g), (h) or (i) is produced may, with leave of the court, require the attendance of the qualified medical practitioner, analyst or qualified technician, as the case may be, for the purposes of cross-examination.
<br>
; Notice of intention to produce certificate
(7) No certificate shall be received in evidence pursuant to paragraph (1)(e), (f), (g), (h) or (i) unless the party intending to produce it has, before the trial, given to the other party reasonable notice of his intention and a copy of the certificate.
<br>
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 258; R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, s. 36, c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 61; {{LegHistory90s|1992, c. 1}}, s. 60(F); {{LegHistory90s|1994, c. 44}}, s. 14(E); {{LegHistory90s|1997, c. 18}}, s. 10.

|[http://canlii.ca/t/hzbv CCC]
}}

===Section 258 (2008 to 2018===
{{quotation1|
;Proceedings under section 255
258 (1) In any proceedings under subsection 255(1) in respect of an offence committed under section 253 or subsection 254(5) or in any proceedings under any of subsections 255(2) to (3.2),
:(a) where it is proved that the accused occupied the seat or position ordinarily occupied by a person who operates a motor vehicle, vessel or aircraft or any railway equipment or who assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment, the accused shall be deemed to have had the care or control of the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, as the case may be, unless the accused establishes that the accused did not occupy that seat or position for the purpose of setting the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment in motion or assisting in the operation of the aircraft or railway equipment, as the case may be;
:(b) the result of an analysis of a sample of the accused’s breath, blood, urine or other bodily substance — other than a sample taken under subsection 254(3), (3.3) or (3.4) — may be admitted in evidence even if the accused was not warned before they gave the sample that they need not give the sample or that the result of the analysis of the sample might be used in evidence;
:(c) where samples of the breath of the accused have been taken pursuant to a demand made under subsection 254(3), if
::(i) [Repealed before coming into force, {{LegHistory00s|2008, c. 20}}, s. 3]
::(ii) each sample was taken as soon as practicable after the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed and, in the case of the first sample, not later than two hours after that time, with an interval of at least fifteen minutes between the times when the samples were taken,
::(iii) each sample was received from the accused directly into an approved container or into an approved instrument operated by a qualified technician, and
::(iv) an analysis of each sample was made by means of an approved instrument operated by a qualified technician,

evidence of the results of the analyses so made is conclusive proof that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood both at the time when the analyses were made and at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed was, if the results of the analyses are the same, the concentration determined by the analyses and, if the results of the analyses are different, the lowest of the concentrations determined by the analyses, in the absence of evidence tending to show all of the following three things — that the approved instrument was malfunctioning or was operated improperly, that the malfunction or improper operation resulted in the determination that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood exceeded 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood, and that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood would not in fact have exceeded 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed;
:(d) if a sample of the accused’s blood has been taken under subsection 254(3) or section 256 or with the accused’s consent and if
::(i) at the time the sample was taken, the person taking the sample took an additional sample of the blood of the accused and one of the samples was retained to permit an analysis of it to be made by or on behalf of the accused and, in the case where the accused makes a request within six months from the taking of the samples, one of the samples was ordered to be released under subsection (4),
::(ii) both samples referred to in subparagraph (i) were taken as soon as practicable and in any event not later than two hours after the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed,
::(iii) both samples referred to in subparagraph (i) were taken by a qualified medical practitioner or a qualified technician under the direction of a qualified medical practitioner,
::(iv) both samples referred to in subparagraph (i) were received from the accused directly into, or placed directly into, approved containers that were subsequently sealed, and
::(v) an analysis was made by an analyst of at least one of the samples,

evidence of the result of the analysis is conclusive proof that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood both at the time when the samples were taken and at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed was the concentration determined by the analysis or, if more than one sample was analyzed and the results of the analyses are the same, the concentration determined by the analyses and, if the results of the analyses are different, the lowest of the concentrations determined by the analyses, in the absence of evidence tending to show all of the following three things — that the analysis was performed improperly, that the improper performance resulted in the determination that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood exceeded 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood, and that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood would not in fact have exceeded 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed;
:(d.01) for greater certainty, evidence tending to show that an approved instrument was malfunctioning or was operated improperly, or that an analysis of a sample of the accused’s blood was performed improperly, does not include evidence of
::(i) the amount of alcohol that the accused consumed,
::(ii) the rate at which the alcohol that the accused consumed would have been absorbed and eliminated by the accused’s body, or
::(iii) a calculation based on that evidence of what the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood would have been at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed;
:(d.1) if samples of the accused’s breath or a sample of the accused’s blood have been taken as described in paragraph (c) or (d) under the conditions described in that paragraph and the results of the analyses show a concentration of alcohol in blood exceeding 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood, evidence of the results of the analyses is proof that the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed exceeded 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood, in the absence of evidence tending to show that the accused’s consumption of alcohol was consistent with both
::(i) a concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood that did not exceed 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, and
::(ii) the concentration of alcohol in the accused’s blood as determined under paragraph (c) or (d), as the case may be, at the time when the sample or samples were taken;
:(e) a certificate of an analyst stating that the analyst has made an analysis of a sample of the blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance of the accused and stating the result of that analysis is evidence of the facts alleged in the certificate without proof of the signature or the official character of the person appearing to have signed the certificate;
:(f) a certificate of an analyst stating that the analyst has made an analysis of a sample of an alcohol standard that is identified in the certificate and intended for use with an approved instrument and that the sample of the standard analyzed by the analyst was found to be suitable for use with an approved instrument, is evidence that the alcohol standard so identified is suitable for use with an approved instrument without proof of the signature or the official character of the person appearing to have signed the certificate;
:(f.1) the document printed out from an approved instrument and signed by a qualified technician who certifies it to be the printout produced by the approved instrument when it made the analysis of a sample of the accused’s breath is evidence of the facts alleged in the document without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed it;
:(g) where samples of the breath of the accused have been taken pursuant to a demand made under subsection 254(3), a certificate of a qualified technician stating
::(i) that the analysis of each of the samples has been made by means of an approved instrument operated by the technician and ascertained by the technician to be in proper working order by means of an alcohol standard, identified in the certificate, that is suitable for use with an approved instrument,
::(ii) the results of the analyses so made, and
::(iii) if the samples were taken by the technician,
:::(A) [Repealed before coming into force, {{LegHistory00s|2008, c. 20}}, s. 3]
:::(B) the time when and place where each sample and any specimen described in clause (A) was taken, and
:::(C) that each sample was received from the accused directly into an approved container or into an approved instrument operated by the technician,

is evidence of the facts alleged in the certificate without proof of the signature or the official character of the person appearing to have signed the certificate;

:(h) if a sample of the accused’s blood has been taken under subsection 254(3) or (3.4) or section 256 or with the accused’s consent,
::(i) a certificate of a qualified medical practitioner stating that
:::(A) they took the sample and before the sample was taken they were of the opinion that taking it would not endanger the accused’s life or health and, in the case of a demand made under section 256, that by reason of any physical or mental condition of the accused that resulted from the consumption of alcohol or a drug, the accident or any other occurrence related to or resulting from the accident, the accused was unable to consent to the taking of the sample,
:::(B) at the time the sample was taken, an additional sample of the blood of the accused was taken to permit analysis of one of the samples to be made by or on behalf of the accused,
:::(C) the time when and place where both samples referred to in clause (B) were taken, and
:::(D) both samples referred to in clause (B) were received from the accused directly into, or placed directly into, approved containers that were subsequently sealed and that are identified in the certificate,
::(ii) a certificate of a qualified medical practitioner stating that the medical practitioner caused the sample to be taken by a qualified technician under his direction and that before the sample was taken the qualified medical practitioner was of the opinion referred to in clause (i)(A), or
::(iii) a certificate of a qualified technician stating that the technician took the sample and the facts referred to in clauses (i)(B) to (D)

is evidence of the facts alleged in the certificate without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed the certificate; and
:(i) a certificate of an analyst stating that the analyst has made an analysis of a sample of the blood of the accused that was contained in a sealed approved container identified in the certificate, the date on which and place where the sample was analyzed and the result of that analysis is evidence of the facts alleged in the certificate without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed it.

;Evidence of failure to give sample
(2) Unless a person is required to give a sample of a bodily substance under paragraph 254(2)(b) or subsection 254(3), (3.3) or (3.4), evidence that they failed or refused to give a sample for analysis for the purposes of this section or that a sample was not taken is not admissible and the failure, refusal or fact that a sample was not taken shall not be the subject of comment by any person in the proceedings.
;Evidence of failure to comply with demand
(3) In any proceedings under subsection 255(1) in respect of an offence committed under paragraph 253(1)(a) or in any proceedings under subsection 255(2) or (3), evidence that the accused, without reasonable excuse, failed or refused to comply with a demand made under section 254 is admissible and the court may draw an inference adverse to the accused from that evidence.
;Release of sample for analysis
(4) If, at the time a sample of an accused’s blood is taken, an additional sample is taken and retained, a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a court of criminal jurisdiction shall, on the summary application of the accused made within six months after the day on which the samples were taken, order the release of one of the samples for the purpose of examination or analysis, subject to any terms that appear to be necessary or desirable to ensure that the sample is safeguarded and preserved for use in any proceedings in respect of which it was taken.
;Testing of blood for concentration of a drug
(5) A sample of an accused’s blood taken under subsection 254(3) or section 256 or with the accused’s consent for the purpose of analysis to determine the concentration, if any, of alcohol in the blood may be tested to determine the concentration, if any, of a drug in the blood.
;Attendance and right to cross-examine
(6) A party against whom a certificate described in paragraph (1)(e), (f), (f.1), (g), (h) or (i) is produced may, with leave of the court, require the attendance of the qualified medical practitioner, analyst or qualified technician, as the case may be, for the purposes of cross-examination.
;Notice of intention to produce certificate
(7) No certificate shall be received in evidence pursuant to paragraph (1)(e), (f), (g), (h) or (i) unless the party intending to produce it has, before the trial, given to the other party reasonable notice of his intention and a copy of the certificate.

R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 258; R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, s. 36, c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 61; {{LegHistory90s|1992, c. 1}}, s. 60(F); {{LegHistory90s|1994, c. 44}}, s. 14(E); {{LegHistory90s|1997, c. 18}}, s. 10; {{LegHistory00s|2008, c. 6}}, s. 24.
|
}}

==2018 to December 18, 2018==
{{quotation1|
; Operation while impaired
253 (1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,
::(a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or
::(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.<br>
; For greater certainty
(2) For greater certainty, the reference to impairment by alcohol or a drug in paragraph (1)(a) includes impairment by a combination of alcohol and a drug.
<br>
;Operation while impaired — blood drug concentration
(3) Subject to subsection (4), everyone commits an offence who has within two hours after ceasing to operate a motor vehicle or vessel or after ceasing to operate or to assist in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or after ceasing to have the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment
:(a) a blood drug concentration that is equal to or exceeds the blood drug concentration for the drug that is prescribed by regulation;
:(b) a blood drug concentration that is equal to or exceeds the blood drug concentration for the drug that is prescribed by regulation and that is less than the concentration prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (a); or
:(c) a blood alcohol concentration and a blood drug concentration that is equal to or exceeds the blood alcohol concentration and the blood drug concentration for the drug that are prescribed by regulation for instances where alcohol and that drug are combined.
;Exception
(4) No person commits an offence under subsection (3) if
:(a) they consumed the drug or the alcohol or both after ceasing to operate a motor vehicle or vessel, or after ceasing to operate or assist in the operation of an aircraft or railway equipment or after ceasing to have the care or control of a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment; and
:(b) after ceasing the activities described in paragraph (a), they had no reasonable expectation that they would be required to provide a sample of a bodily substance.

R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 253; R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, s. 36, c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 59; {{LegHistory00s|2008, c. 6}}, s. 18; {{LegHistory10s|2018, c. 21}}, s. 1.
|{{CCCSec2|253}} CCC]
}}

{{quotation1|
; Failure or refusal to comply with demand
s. 254<br>...<br>
(5) Everyone commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with a demand made under this section.
<br>...<br>
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 254; R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, s. 36, c. 1 (4th Supp.), ss. 14, 18(F), c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 60; {{LegHistory90s|1999, c. 32}}, s. 2(Preamble); {{LegHistory00s|2008, c. 6}}, s. 19.
|{{CCCSec2|254}} CCC]
}}

{{quotation1|
; Punishment
255 (1) Every one who commits an offence under section 253 or 254 is guilty of an indictable offence or an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable,
:(a) whether the offence is prosecuted by indictment or punishable on summary conviction, to the following minimum punishment, namely,
::(i) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than $1,000,
::(ii) for a second offence, to imprisonment for not less than 30 days, and
::(iii) for each subsequent offence, to imprisonment for not less than 120 days;
:(b) where the offence is prosecuted by indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; and
:(c) if the offence is punishable on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months.<br>
...<br>
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 255; R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, s. 36; R.S., 1985, c. 1 (4th Supp.), s. 18(F); {{LegHistory90s|1995, c. 22}}, s. 18; {{LegHistory90s|1999, c. 32}}, s. 3(Preamble); {{LegHistory00s|2000, c. 25}}, s. 2; {{LegHistory00s|2008, c. 6}}, s. 21, c. 18, ss. 7, 45.2.<br>
| [{{CCCSec|253}} CCC] 
}}


[[Category:Legislative History]]