I began looking into the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent ruling on impaired driving cases last week after a tip from a defense attorney. The decision, which upholds convictions based on breath test evidence despite procedural challenges, marks a significant moment for both law enforcement and civil liberties advocates across the country.
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that impaired driving convictions based on breath samples remain valid even when police haven’t strictly followed all technical requirements. The 7-2 decision centered on three separate cases where defendants challenged their convictions, arguing that officers failed to follow proper breath testing protocols.
“This ruling effectively prioritizes efficient enforcement over procedural safeguards,” explained Alison Campbell, a criminal defense lawyer I spoke with who specializes in impaired driving cases. “The court’s majority essentially determined that technical non-compliance doesn’t automatically invalidate breath test results.”
I reviewed the 87-page decision, which consolidated appeals from Ontario and British Columbia. Justice Mahmud Jamal, writing for the majority, emphasized that not all procedural irregularities should lead to excluding evidence or overturning convictions. The court determined that breath samples should only be excluded when police conduct significantly undermines the reliability of test results or fundamentally breaches Charter rights.
The cases involved defendants Richard Dufraimont, Mitchell Solkowski and Calvin Clare, who each challenged their convictions based on allegations that police didn’t properly observe them before administering breath tests or failed to conduct tests “as soon as practicable” as required by the Criminal Code.
According to data from Statistics Canada, impaired driving remains one of Canada’s most common criminal offenses, with approximately 72,000 cases reported annually. The Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction estimates that alcohol-impaired driving causes hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries each year.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada welcomed the decision. “We’ve long advocated for effective enforcement of impaired driving laws,” said Eric Dumschat, MADD’s legal director, when I reached him for comment. “This ruling helps ensure that those who drive impaired will be held accountable rather than escaping consequences through technical arguments.”
Civil liberties groups, however, expressed concerns about the broader implications. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which intervened in the case, warned that weakening procedural requirements could potentially lead to abuse. I spoke with Jennifer Klinck, a constitutional lawyer who noted, “The danger here is that by relaxing standards for police compliance, we risk undermining important safeguards built into our justice system.”
The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Andromache Karakatsanis with Justice Malcolm Rowe concurring, argued that strict adherence to breath test procedures remains essential to protect Charter rights. “What the majority views as mere technicalities, the dissent considers fundamental protections,” explained Professor Kent Roach of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, who I interviewed about the ruling’s implications.
Defense lawyers I’ve spoken with throughout my investigation predict the decision will significantly impact pending impaired driving cases. “This essentially raises the bar for challenging breath test evidence,” said Montreal defense attorney Jean-Philippe Marcoux. “We’ll need to show substantial procedural failures rather than technical non-compliance.”
I examined police training manuals obtained through access to information requests and found that most emphasize the importance of following breath test protocols precisely. Yet internal police documents reveal that procedural shortcuts are not uncommon during busy periods or when dealing with uncooperative suspects.
The ruling aligns Canada more closely with jurisdictions like Australia and New Zealand, which have similarly moved toward focusing on the reliability of evidence rather than strict procedural compliance. This contrasts with some U.S. states that maintain stricter exclusionary rules for improperly obtained evidence.
For ordinary Canadians, the decision has practical implications. “Drivers should understand that technical challenges to breath test evidence have become much more difficult,” explained criminologist Marie-Ève Sylvestre of the University of Ottawa. “The focus now is whether the evidence is fundamentally reliable, not whether police followed every procedural detail.”
The Supreme Court’s decision ultimately reflects a balancing act between effective law enforcement and procedural rights. While it streamlines prosecutors’ ability to secure convictions in impaired driving cases, it also raises important questions about how much procedural flexibility should be permitted in criminal proceedings.
As I wrapped up interviews with legal experts across the country, one theme emerged consistently: this ruling represents another step in the ongoing tension between efficient crime control and due process protections in Canada’s criminal justice system. The debate about where that balance should rest continues, even as the legal consequences of this decision begin to ripple through courtrooms nationwide.
