View source for Refusal to Give a Sample (Until December 13, 2018)

{{Currency2|January|2019}}
{{LevelZero}}
{{HeaderOffencesMV}}
==General Principles==
The offence under 254(5) states:
{{quotation2|
254<Br>
{{removed|(1), (2), (2.1), (3), (3.1), (3.2), (3.3), (3.4), (3.5), (3.6) and (4)}}
; 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.
<Br>
{{removed|(6)}}
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}}
|{{NoteUp|254|5}}
}}

This is a single offence that can be committed in several different ways.<ref>
{{CanLIIR-S|Angrignon|5ds1|2002 SKQB 477 (CanLII)|32 MVR (4th) 196 (Sask. Q.B.)}}{{perSKQB|Allbright J}}{{atp|199}}:
("...s. 254(5) creates the single offence of non-compliance which may be committed either by failure or refusal, and the subsection creates only one offence, the gravamen of which is non-compliance with a demand under the subsection.")</ref>

{{quotation2|
258<br>
{{removed|(1)}}
; 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) {{AnnSec2|254(2)(b)}} or subsection 254(3) {{AnnSec2|254(3)}}, (3.3) {{AnnSec2|254(3.3)}} or (3.4) {{AnnSec2|254(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.
<br>
; Evidence of failure to comply with demand
(3) In any proceedings under subsection 255(1) {{AnnSec2|255(1)}} in respect of an offence committed under paragraph 253(1)(a) {{AnnSec2|253(1)(a)}} or in any proceedings under subsection 255(2) {{AnnSec2|255(2)}} or (3) {{AnnSec2|255(3)}}, evidence that the accused, without reasonable excuse, failed or refused to comply with a demand made under section 254 {{AnnSec2|254}} is admissible and the court may draw an inference adverse to the accused from that evidence.
<br>
{{removed|(4), (5), (6) and (7)}}
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.
{{Annotation}}
|{{CCCSec2|258}}
|{{NoteUp|258|2|3}}
}}

The offence can be committed in two ways, either by ''refusing'' or ''failing'' to comply with the demand.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|MacNeil|hv0n9|1978 CanLII 2464 (ON CA)| (1978) 41 CCC (2d) 46 (ONCA)}}{{perONCA|Dubin JA}}{{atsL|hv0n9|6| to 7}}</ref>

There remains conflicting case law on whether the offence is a [[Intention|specific or general intent offence]].<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Butler|fx8hl|2013 ONSC 2403 (CanLII)|44 MVR (6th) 281}}{{perONSC|Durno J}}{{atL|fx8hl|42}}<br>
Specific intent cases:<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Lewko|5g0t|2002 SKCA 121 (CanLII)|169 CCC (3d) 359}}{{perSKCA|Bayda CJ}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Sullivan|, [2001] OJ No 2799 (C.J.)}}<br>
</ref>However, the more recent case law has largely fallen on the side of refusal being a general intent offence and so requires no more than a recklessness or knowledge of the mens rea.<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Buffalo|, [2002] AJ 1641 (QB)}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|White|1jvpj|2005 NSCA 32 (CanLII)|[2005] NSJ 62 (NSCA)}}{{perNSCA|Chipman JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Warnica|gd6z7|1980 CanLII 2897 (NSCA)| (1980) 56 CCC (2d) 100 (NSCA)}}{{perNSCA|MacKeigan CJ}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Porter|frshc|2012 ONSC 3504 (CanLII)|OJ No 2841}}{{perONSC|Code J}}{{atL|frshc|34}}<br> 
{{supra1|Butler}}{{atsL|fx8hl|43| to  45}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Valid Demand to Comply==
:''See also  [[Breath Sample Demand#Blood or Breath Sample Demand|Breath Sample Demand]].''

There is no requirement to have evidence as to the extent of chances available to a person who changes their mind.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Kitchener|fscd1|2012 ONSC 4754 (CanLII)|OJ No 3857}}{{perONSC|Di Tomaso J}}{{atL|fscd1|23}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|McNab|, [2001] OJ No 4738 (S.C.J)}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Gutierrez|, [2001] OJ No 3659 (SCJ)}}<br> 
</ref> 
Moreover, where the refusal is unequivocal there is no obligation for a "last chance" warning.<ref>
{{supra1|Kitchener}}{{atL|fscd1|31}} citing {{CanLIIRP|Woods|1l27r|2005 SCC 42 (CanLII)|[2005] 2 SCR 205}}{{perSCC-H|Fish J}} at 45</ref>

There is no requirement that the police officer explain all the consequences of non-compliance to a valid demand.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Danychuk|1gh3j|2004 CanLII 12975 (ON CA)|[2004] OJ No 615 (CA)}}{{perONCA|Blair JA}}{{atL|1gh3j|2}}
</ref>

It is unclear whether the authority to make a demand under s. 254(3) includes the authority to have the accused taken to the location of the device or whether the accused must choose to accompany them.<ref>
see {{CanLIIRP|Mandryk|fs3b1|2012 ONSC 3964 (CanLII)|291 CCC (3d) 182}}{{perONSC|Code J}}</ref> 
However, a failure or refusal to accompany the officer to the device may not amount to a full refusal.<ref>
{{ibid}}</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Refusal to Comply==

The refusal to comply with the demand for a breath sample must be unequivocal.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Desharnais|2dm57|1988 ABCA 167 (CanLII)|89 AR 161}}{{TheCourtABCA}} <br>
{{CanLIIRP|Cunningham|2dn0b|1989 ABCA 163 (CanLII)| (1989), 97 AR 81 (CA)}}{{perABCA|Côté JA}} (2:1) </ref>

In a refusal case (as opposed to a "failing" case), it is irrelevant whether or not the breathalyzer was functioning properly. <ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Ealey|gd0zl|1992 CanLII 7862 (SKQB)|101 Sask R 199 (Sask. Q. B.)}}{{perSKQB|Hunter J}}</ref>
However, in a fail case, it may be a valid defence to show that the device or instrument was not properly functioning.<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Kosa| (1992) 42 MVR (2d) 290 (ONCA)}}<br>
cf. {{CanLIIR-N|Young| [2007] OJ 1776}}<br>
</ref>

It is possible to refuse by body language such as turning away and closing eyes.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Page|2f0f4|1982 ABCA 230 (CanLII)| [1982] AJ 920}}{{perABCA|Harradence JA}}</ref> 
Or refuse by silence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Lawson|fm3zd|2011 BCSC 876 (CanLII)|[2011] BCJ 1262 (SC)}}{{perBCSC|Adair J}}</ref>

Evidence should show that the device was working properly. This should include evidence that the device had been previously tested including the mouthpiece for obstructions. <ref>
see {{CanLIIRP|Dolphin|1jch5|2004 MBQB 252 (CanLII)|189 Man R (2d) 178}}{{perMBQB|Scurfield J}}{{atL|1jch5|12}} – police failed to give evidence of the testing of the machine</ref>

A refusal which is equivocal and closely followed by an offer, then the offence is not made out.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Sagh|2bj6t|1981 CanLII 1210 (AB QB)|62 CCC (3rd) 521(Alta. C.A.)}}{{perABQB|Wachowich J}}</ref>

It has been found that a reasonable excuse is not made out on the basis of officially induced error from an accused accepting the bad advice from duty counsel to refuse the breathalyser.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Hizsa|fpcpd|2011 ABPC 358 (CanLII)}}{{perABPC|Fradsham J}}{{atsL|fpcpd|34 to 41}}</ref>

In assessing the totality of the circumstances, the judge may consider the evidence of the accused's silence in response to a lawful demand.<ref>
{{supra1|Lawson}}
</ref>

An unlawful refusal of the screening device will still amount to an offence even if the device is not at the scene.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Degiorgio|fmctr|2011 ONCA 527 (CanLII)|275 CCC (3d) 1}}{{perONCA|LaForme JA}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Failure to Comply==
A failure to comply with the demand arises where a suspect makes either genuine or faked attempts at providing a sample.

; Feigning or Faking Attempts
When an accused may be feigning his attempts to provide a sample, the "totality of the circumstances including any explanation advanced at the time of the attempt or in court must be considered."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Butler|fx8hl|2013 ONSC 2403 (CanLII)|44 MVR (6th) 281}}{{perONSC|Durno J}}{{atL|fx8hl|41}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Bijelic|1wnmf|2008 CanLII 17564 (ONSC)|[2008] OJ No 1911 (SCJ)}}{{perONSC|Hill J}}{{atL|1wnmf|30}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Porter|frshc|2012 ONSC 3504 (CanLII)|[2012] OJ No 2841 (SCJ)}}{{perONSC|Code J}}{{atsL|frshc|30| to 31}}<br>
</ref>

An intention to fake a sample must be proven by the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Sceviour|2btdx|2010 NLCA 47 (CanLII)|258 CCC (3d) 196}}{{perNLCA|Rowe JA}}{{atL|2btdx|14}}</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Change of Mind==

A refusal almost immediately followed by a change of heart may not amount to a full refusal.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Cunningham|2dn0b|1989 ABCA 163 (CanLII)|49 CCC (3rd) 521}}{{perABCA|Côté JA}} (2:1)</ref>

A shorter turn around time of 5 minutes can be seen as equivocal.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Hiebert|fpxs1|2012 MBPC 5 (CanLI)|274 Man R (2d) 25}}{{perMBPC|Sandhu J}}</ref>

Where there is a full refusal and after 15 minutes an offer to take the test, then the offence is made out. The two events are entirely separate.<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Butt| (1983), 44 Nfld. & PEIR 297}}</ref>

Where there is an unequivocal refusal, there is no requirement on the officer to offer a second chance at giving the ASD test.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Komenda|fqzff|2012 BCSC 536 (CanLII)}} citing numerous cases on the issue<br>
cf. {{CanLIIR-N|Domik| (1979), 2 MVR 301 (Ont. H.Ct.J.), aff’d [1980] OJ No 710 (CA)}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Reasonable Excuse==
{{seealso|Reasonable Excuse}}
Once the crown proves the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden shifts to the accused to establish on a balance of probabilities that there is a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a breath sample.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Butler|fx8hl|2013 ONSC 2403 (CanLII)|44 MVR (6th) 281}}{{perONSC|Durno J}}{{atL|fx8hl|39}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Moser|1p798|1992 CanLII 2839 (ON CA)|7 OR (3d) 737}}{{perONCA|Brooke JA}}{{atsL|15|, 18}} and {{atsL-np|1p798|42|}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Rai|1k8n8|2005 CanLII 14143 (ONSC)|17 MVR (5th) 296 (SCJ)}}{{perONSC|Hill J}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Malicia|, [2004] OJ No 6016 (SCJ)}}<br>
</ref>

It is of some debate whether an explanation for not providing a sample is a reasonable excuse or a failure to prove the mens rea.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Westerman|fpm40|2012 ONCJ 9 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Durno J}}{{atL|fpm40|16}}<br>
{{supra1|Butler}}{{atL|fx8hl|42}}<br>
</ref>

The burden of proving there was no reasonable excuse is simply on raising a doubt.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Goleski|fm85j|2011 BCSC 911 (CanLII)|18 MVR (6th) 31}}{{perBCSC|Leask J}} appealed to {{CanLII|g5bwd|2014 BCCA 80 (CanLII)}}{{perBCCA|Frankel JA}}</ref>

For a reasonable excuse to exist there must be something in the circumstances that renders "compliance with the demand either extremely difficult or likely to involve a substantial risk to the health of the person on whom the demand has been made."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Davidson|56gv|2003 SKPC 101 (CanLII)|235 Sask R 188}}{{perSKPC|Halderman J}}{{atL|56gv|15}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Nadeau|htwv5|1974 CanLII 1538 (NB CA)| (1974) 19 CCC (2d) 199 (N.B.C.A.)}}{{perNBCA|Hughes CJ}}{{atp|201}}<br>
</ref>

An offer to provide a sample through other means such as a blood sample is not sufficient to be a “reasonable excuse”.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Taylor|1db5l|1993 CanLII 1603 (BCCA)|, (1993) BCJ No 365 (CA)}}{{perBCCA|Southin JA}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Weir|1mr4w|1993 CanLII 3153 (NSCA)|, (1993) NSJ No 58 (CA)}}{{perNSCA|Freeman JA}}</ref>

A person who refuses the breathalyser on the basis of advice from the duty counsel phone call cannot amount to a reasonable excuse. <ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Hizsa|fpcpd|2011 ABPC 358 (CanLII)}}{{perABPC|Fradsham J}} at 34-41</ref>

An accused may be permitted to refuse to provide a sample where the officer has shown some "malice to the person whose breath was to be tested or if he had threatened some unfairness or illegality."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Dawson|2f0xb|1996 CanLII 11036 (NL CA)|438 APR 176}}{{perNLCA|Cameron JA}}<br>
</ref>
The basis of the belief of the threat must be reasonable.<ref>
{{ibid1|Dawson}}{{atL|2f0xb|12}}<br>
</ref>

Reasonable excuses have been found when:
* The technician had dirty hands and refused to clean them prior to administering the test.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Prout|g1h2g|1971 CanLII 391 (ON SC)|5 CCC (2d) 272 (Ont. Co. Ct.)}}{{perONSC|Jacob J}}
</ref>
* the accused had been previously assaulted by police and was reasonably fearful of further violence<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Burkitt|, [1972] 6 WWR 251 (Man. Co. Ct.) }}</ref>
* rough handling by police<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Pye| (1993), 46 MVR (2d) 181 (Alta. Q.B.)}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Wall| (1982), 17 MVR 87 (Nfld. Dist. Ct.)}}</ref>
* reasonable fear that an unsatisfactory result would incur violence by police<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Gorrill| (1980), 39 NSR (2d) 533; 71 APR 533; 7 MVR 141 (Co. Ct.)}}
</ref>
Reasonable doubt about intention to refuse to provide a sample for the screening device has been found on the basis of the accused nervousness and anxiety.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Schwartz|23d9g|2009 ABPC 120 (CanLII)|473 AR 233}}{{perABPC|Malin J}}
</ref>

An honestly held religious belief cannot be used as a reasonable excuse.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Chomokowski|g9x3f|1973 CanLII 1489 (MB CA)|11 CCC (2d) 562, [1973] 5 WWR 184}}{{perMBCA|Hall JA}}
</ref>

Reliance on poor legal advice is generally not a defence of officially induced error.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Pea|g1hzg|2008 CanLII 89824 (ON CA)|79 WCB (2d) 262}}{{perONCA|Gillese JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Suter|gmmtv|2015 ABPC 269 (CanLII)|94 MVR (6th) 91}}{{perABPC|Anderson J}}<br>
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

==Other Issues==
Where the suspect offers to give a blood sample instead of giving a breath sample in the ASD or breathalyser, the officer is at liberty to seek a voluntary blood sample. The officer may only demand a blood sample in place of a breathalyser sample if the officer believes that the "suspect is incapable of providing breath samples".

The officer may also demand that that the suspect perform a physical coordination test in place of a roadside demand (s. 254(2)(a)).

{{reflist|2}}