Because I was in the middle of nowhere it cost $220 to tow my vehicle to the impound where I still had to find a ride the rest of the way home. Luckily my wife was able to get me or I would have been stranded approx 30km from home.

On top of the $150 to get my license back (compared to the $10 to get a replacement license) I had to miss two days of work because I had no way to get there. I live in a rural community and driving is not a luxury but a necessity.

Now, what I am running up against is figuring out how to fight this law. I have the right to take a $20 parking ticket to court yet a law that costs me at least $600, not to mention the emotional toll, cannot be appealled? I feel like I have suddenly been transported to Nazi Germany and I can't believe this can happen in Canada. As much as I love this country I am rapidly beginning to hate Ontario.

In this case however we aren't talking about a "conviction" because there has been no "crime". However, a person can be found liable for damages resulting from a car accident if one was "intoxicated" yet still below the legal limit for criminal liability.

Would someone be able to come into court and use the fact that the defendant was within the "warn limit" to support a negligence per se action, when the defendant never had the opportunity to mount a defense against this non-crime?

It should also be noted that the roadside test being utilized by the new RSA is NOT admissible in court as Mr. Marsh mistakenly suggested. Police are using an AlcotestGLC (or similar) for their roadsides. The "failure" of such a test is admissible solely for the purposes of supporting an officers' grounds for making an arrest. The number yielded by the machine is NOT admissible, nor is its conclusion admissible for anything beyond justifying a lawful arrest. In order for a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) figure to be admitted in court, the test must be performed by a certified Breath Technician (a certification that most police officers do not hold) and the machine used must be the larger and more accurate Intoxilyzer 5000C.

As someone who has himself been certified in the operation of these machines, I readily admit that, generally speaking they are accurate, but there are a host of circumstances in which they can fail. To name just a short list: operator error, improper calibration, and machine malfunction. These machines are all also susceptible to 'confusion by interferents' such as breath strips, mouth alcohol, cough medicines, or even something as innocuous as a burp under certain circumstances.

Let me be clear, impaired driving is a grave social ill that Parliament quite rightly is targeting with serious consequences. However, justice requires due process and an opportunity to ensure that convictions for this behaviour are accurate and fair. A trial provides for such protections. The new RSA does not.

There is a reason why the roadside screening results are not even admissible in court. Better hope the screening device is working properly when you get pulled over!

In other news, the ONCA ruled last week that by default, breathalyzer test results are admissible even when the officer did not have reasonable and probable grounds to make a breath demand.

The breath test certificate is valid even though the officer did not comply with the Criminal Code in obtaining the sample.

The only way to get the evidence excluded is for the defendant to get past the Charter s. 8 and s. 24(2) hurdles.