FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
FAQ
1
What is a breath demand?
2
Who can make a breath demand?
3
What is a “Motor Vehicle” in this Context?
4
When can a breath demand be made?
5
What is an approved screening device
6
What is an approved instrument?
7
What is a “conveyance” in this context?
8
What is a “motor vehicle” in this context?
9
What is “operation” in this context?
1. What is a breath demand?
A breath demand is a demand requiring a person to immediately provide the samples of breath that, in the peace officer’s opinion, are necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made by means of an approved screening device.¹
¹ “Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)” (26 May 2026) https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html at ss 320.27(1), 320.27(1)(b).
2. Who can make a breath demand?
A peace officer can make a breath demand.⁴
⁴“Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)” (26 May 2026) https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html at ss 320.27(1), 320.27(1)(b), 320.27(2), 320.28(1), 320.28(1)(a), 320.28(1)(a)(i).
3. What is a peace officer?
A peace officer includes a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer and justice of the peace; a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act; a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process, a designated officer as defined in section 2 of the Integrated Cross-border Law Enforcement Operations Act, when participating in an integrated cross-border operation, as defined in section 2 of that Act, or engaging in an activity incidental to such an operation, including travel for the purpose of participating in the operation and appearances in court arising from the operation; an officer within the meaning of the Customs Act, the Excise Act or the Excise Act, 2001, or a person having the powers of such an officer, when performing any duty in the administration of any of those Acts; an officer authorized under subsection 138(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; a person designated as a fishery guardian under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act and a person designated as a fishery officer under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act or the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act; the pilot in command of an aircraft registered in Canada under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act, or leased without crew and operated by a person who is qualified under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act to be registered as owner of an aircraft registered in Canada under those regulations, while the aircraft is in flight; and officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces who are appointed for the purposes of section 156 of the National Defence Act, or employed on duties that the Governor in Council, in regulations made under the National Defence Act for the purposes of this paragraph, has prescribed to be of such a kind as to necessitate that the officers and non-commissioned members performing them have the powers of peace officers.
⁵“Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)” (26 May 2026) https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html at s 2
4. When can a breath demand be made?
A breath demand can be made when a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol or a drug in the person’s body and that the person has, within the preceding three hours, operated a conveyance.⁶
A breath demand can also be made when a peace officer has in his or her possession an approved screening device and, in the course of the lawful exercise of powers under an Act of Parliament or an Act of a provincial legislature or arising at common law, encounters a person who is operating a motor vehicle.⁷
A breath demand can also be made when a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe either of the following things:
-
that a person has operated a conveyance while the person’s ability to operate it was impaired to any degree by alcohol; or ⁸
-
that a person has, within two hours after ceasing to operate a conveyance, a blood alcohol concentration that is equal to or exceeds 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood. ⁹
⁶“Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)” (26 May 2026) https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html at ss 320.27(1), 320.27(1)(b).
⁷“Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)” (26 May 2026) https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html at s 320.27(2
⁸“Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)” (26 May 2026) https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html at ss 320.28(1), 320.28(1)(a), 320.28(1)(a)(i).
⁹“Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)” (26 May 2026) https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html at ss 320.14(1)(b), 320.28(1), 320.28(1)(a), 320.28(1)(a)(i)
5. What is an approved screening device?
An approved screening device is a device that is designed to ascertain the presence of alcohol in a person’s blood and that is approved by the Attorney General of Canada as a device that is designed to ascertain the presence of alcohol in a person’s blood.¹⁰
¹⁰“Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)” (26 May 2026) https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html at ss 320.11, 320.39, 320.39(a).
6. What is an approved instrument?
An approved instrument is an instrument that is designed to receive and make an analysis of a sample of a person’s breath to determine the person’s blood alcohol concentration and is approved by the Attorney General of Canada as an instrument that is designed to receive and make an analysis of a sample of a person’s breath to determine the person’s blood alcohol concentration.¹¹
¹¹“Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)” (26 May 2026) https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html at ss 320.11, 320.39, 320.39(c).
7. What is a “conveyance” in this context?
A conveyance is defined as a motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft, or railway equipment.¹²
¹²“Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)” (26 May 2026) https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html at s 320.11
8. What is a “motor vehicle” in this context?
A motor vehicle is defined as a vehicle that is drawn, propelled or driven by any means other than muscular power, but does not include railway equipment.¹³
¹³“Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)” (26 May 2026) https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html at s 2
9. What is “operation” in this context?
To operate means, in respect of a motor vehicle, to drive the motor vehicle or to have care or control of the motor vehicle; in respect of a vessel or aircraft, to navigate the vessel or aircraft, to assist in the vessel or aircraft’s navigation or to have care or control of the vessel or aircraft; and in respect of railway equipment, to participate in the direct control of the railway equipment’s motion, or to have care or control of the railway equipment as a member of the railway equipment’s crew, as a person who acts in lieu of a member of the railway equipment’s crew by remote control, or otherwise.¹⁶
¹³“Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)” (26 May 2026) https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/FullText.html at s 2
10. Is a peace officer required to declare, to the accused. The peace officer’s legal basis to make a breath demand for an approved screening device?
A peace officer is not required to declare, either to the accused or in the peace officer’s testimony in Court, the peace officer’s legal basis to make a breath demand for an approved screening device.¹ ⁷
11. Is a peace officer required to declare in the peace officer’s testimony in Court the peace officer’s legal basis to make a breath demand for an approved screening device?
As long as a peace officer’s basis to make a breath demand for an approved screening device is lawful for any reason, the peace officer’s breath demand for an approved screening device is lawful. Even when the peace officer wrongly bases a breath demand for an approved screening device upon a mistaken belief that a situation suffices to make the breath demand for an approved screening device lawful, when the peace officer is still dealing with a situation in which the breath demand for an approved screening device is lawful for another reason, the breath demand for an approved screening device is lawful.¹⁹
¹⁸ “R. v. Jerlo, 2025 ONCJ 586 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2025/2025oncj586/2025oncj586.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at para 32, read in context with “Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46” (26 May 2026) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at ss 320.27(1), 320.27(1)(b), 320.27(2).
¹⁹ “R. v. Jerlo, 2025 ONCJ 586 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2025/2025oncj586/2025oncj586.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 36-43, read in context with “Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46” (26 May 2026) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at ss 320.27(1), 320.27(1)(b), 320.27(2).
TESTIMONIALS
Case: R. v. A.M. Charge:
Impaired Driving Over 80
Result: Criminal Charge Withdrawn
"If you are ever in need of a criminal lawyer when faced with a DUI over 80, these guys are the right team for the job.
Just when I thought my life was over, since I stood a very good chance of losing my Driver's License and my career, they stepped up to the plate. My case was handled with great professionalism and expertise. In our first meeting, they took the time to explain to me what exactly I was facing and gave me a breakdown of the legal system, the charge, and what I could expect going forward. This instantly put my mind at ease since they were so knowledgeable about the legal system. Throughout the process, the team did an outstanding job keeping me up-to-date and clearly outlined what the next steps would be. In the end, I am very proud to say that due to all of their hard work and proficiency. I was able to walk away without a criminal conviction or criminal record. You went above and beyond the call of duty to ensure that my DUI charge was dropped.
I must say that I am very grateful to the team for doing such an awesome job with my case.
I definitely would recommend you to anyone who is faced with a DUI charge."
- A.M.
Case: R. v. A.T.
Charge: Impaired Driving Over 80
Result: Criminal Charge Withdrawn
"When I was down on my luck, and thinking of doing something stupid, these guys were there for me. When my back was up against the ropes, I knew that these guys would fight for my cause. They never stopped believing and they never stopped fighting for me.
Thank you!”
- A.T.
12. What happens when a peace officer makes a breath demand for an approved screening device using the wrong legal basis?
A peace officer can make a mandatory alcohol screening demand when the following criteria are met: the demand’s subject is operating a motor vehicle; the peace officer is in the lawful exercise of the peace officer’s duties under an Act of Parliament or an Act of a provincial legislature or arising at common law; the peace officer possesses an approved screening device on hand; and the demand is immediate.²⁰
²⁰ “R. v. Rahmanian, 2024 ONCJ 411 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj411/2024oncj411.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 9, 11, read in context with “Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46” (26 May 2026) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at s 320.27(2).
13. When can a peace officer make a mandatory alcohol screening demand?
Although reasonable grounds to suspect and reasonable and probable grounds to believe are similar because they both must be grounded in objective facts, reasonable suspicion is a lower standard, engaging the reasonable possibility, rather than probability. As a result, when applying the reasonable suspicion standard, reviewing judges must be cautious not to conflate the reasonable suspicion standard with the more demanding reasonable and probable grounds standard.²²
A police officer can form reasonable grounds to suspect that an accused has alcohol in the body, and can therefore be subjected to a lawful breath demand for an approved screening device, by observing the accused’s behaviour and speech and proximity to alcohol.²³
²¹ “R. v. Chehil, 2013 SCC 49 (CanLII), [2013] 3 SCR 220” https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc49/2013scc49.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at para 27.
²² “R. v. Chehil, 2013 SCC 49 (CanLII), [2013] 3 SCR 220” https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc49/2013scc49.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at para 27.
²³ See, e.g., “R. v. Rajasekeran, 2024 ONCJ 228 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj228/2024oncj228.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 1-3, 19.
14. What are “reasonable grounds to suspect”?
A lawful breath demand for an approved screening device can only be made when the peace officer making the breath demand for the approved screening device has an approved screening device in the peace officer’s possession²⁴, although there is no need for the accused to be shown the approved screening device²⁵ or for the Crown to prove, through anything beyond the peace officer’s evidence in Court, that the device was an approved screening device²⁶. Peace officers must have an ASD immediately available when making the breath demand for an approved screening device.²⁷
Therefore, when a peace officer lacks an approved screening device, the peace officer cannot make a breath demand for the approved screening device.
²⁴ “R. v. Breault, 2023 SCC 9 (CanLII), [2023] 1 SCR 340” https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2023/2023scc9/2023scc9.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 61-67.
²⁵ “R. v. Enwright, 2024 ONCJ 176 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj176/2024oncj176.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 21-24.
²⁶ “R. v Priestly-Campbell, 2023 ONSC 3906 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc3906/2023onsc3906.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 5-11.
²⁷ “R. v. Khandakar, 2024 ONCA 620 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2024/2024onca620/2024onca620.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at para 37.
15. When can a peace officer not make a breath demand despite having the requisite reasonable grounds to suspect?
Although a trier of fact must consider all of the circumstances in determining whether a peace officer had an approved screening device in the peace officer’s possession, unchallenged evidence from a peace officer that the peace officer had an approved screening device in the peace officer’s possession may support a finding that the peace officer had an approved screening device in the peace officer’s possession and that as a result the peace officer could use the mandatory alcohol screening demand²⁸ or another type of lawful breath demand for an approved screening device.²⁹
In order to have an approved screening device in a peace officer’s possession for the purpose of a lawful breath demand involving an approved screening device, a peace officer must know where the approved screening device is, have control over the approved screening device, and be able to use the approved screening device when the approved screening device is needed for use.³⁰ The peace officer can have an approved screening device in the peace officer’s possession when the approved screening device in in the peace officer’s cruiser and the peace officer is nearby engaging in a traffic stop.³¹ The key issue in determining whether a peace officer is too far away from the approved screening device for the approved screening device to be in the peace officer’s possession has been determined to be whether the peace officer is able to retrieve the approved screening device within approximately one minute.³² A peace officer has an approved screening device in the peace officer’s possession when the approved screening device is in the peace officer’s pocket.³³
²⁸ “R. v Priestly-Campbell, 2023 ONSC 3906 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2023/2023onsc3906/2023onsc3906.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at para 11, read in context with “Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46” (26 May 2026) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at s 320.27(2).
²⁹ Such as is described in “Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46” (26 May 2026) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at ss 320.27(1), 320.27(1)(b).
³⁰ “R v Morrison, 2020 SKPC 28 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skpc/doc/2020/2020skpc28/2020skpc28.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 183-184.
³¹ “R. v. Davy, 2024 YKTC 26 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/yk/yktc/doc/2024/2024yktc26/2024yktc26.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 1, 3, 6-11, 46; cf, “R. v. Campbell, 2022 ONCJ 571 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2022/2022oncj571/2022oncj571.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 3, 8.
³² “R v Mackenzie Wright, 2023 SKKB 236 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skkb/doc/2023/2023skkb236/2023skkb236.html
(accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 83-86, 92, “R v Wright, 2025 SKCA 52 (CanLII)”
https://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skca/doc/2025/2025skca52/2025skca52.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 2, 4, “Brayden Wright v. His Majesty the King, et al., 2026 CanLII 252 (SCC)” https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc-l/doc/2026/2026canlii252/2026canlii252.html (accessed 19 July 2026).
³³ “R. v. Tandon, 2026 ONCJ 343 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2025/2025oncj586/2025oncj586.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 42-46.
16. When does a peace officer have an approved screening device in the peace officer’s possession?
The standard of reasonable grounds to believe is a standard of credibly-based probability, not the equivalent of a prima facie case, balance of probabilities, or any other numerical formula.³⁴ The standard of reasonable grounds to believe only requires a credibly-based probability.³⁵ The standard of reasonable grounds to believe is a practical, non-technical standard based on factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent people act.³⁶ The standard of reasonable grounds to believe defies precise definition or quantification into percentages and is neither a scientific nor a metaphysical exercise.³⁷ The standard of reasonable grounds to believe requires a judge to consider whether there is an objective basis which is based upon compelling and credible information.³⁸ The standard of suspecting on reasonable grounds is lower than the standard of reasonable grounds to believe.³⁹
A police officer can form reasonable grounds to believe that an accused was involved in an offence relating to impaired operation, and can therefore be subjected to a lawful breath demand for an approved instrument, by gathering a complaint of poor driving, evidence that the accused had been the driver observed, the accused’s admission of recent alcohol consumption, and the peace officer’s personal observations of the accused’s lack of sobriety.⁴⁰
³⁴ “R. v. Hayatibahar, 2026 ONCA 507 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2026/2026onca507/2026onca507.html (accessed 18 July 2026) at paras 57-58.
³⁵ “R. v. McNeill, 2020 ONCA 313 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2020/2020onca313/2020onca313.html (accessed 18 July 2026) at para 32.
³⁶ Cf, “R. v. Hayatibahar, 2026 ONCA 507 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2026/2026onca507/2026onca507.html (accessed 18 July 2026) at paras 57-58.
³⁷ “R. v. Hayatibahar, 2026 ONCA 507 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2026/2026onca507/2026onca507.html (accessed 18 July 2026) at paras 57-58.
³⁸ “Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9 (CanLII), [2007] 1 SCR 350” https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2007/2007scc9/2007scc9.html (accessed 18 July 2026) at para 39.
³⁹ “R. v. Poirier, 2016 ONCA 582 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2016/2016onca582/2016onca582.html (accessed 18 July 2026) at para 45.
⁴⁰ See, e.g., “R. v. Maiato, 2025 ONCJ 186 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj228/2024oncj228.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 1, 5-7, 17, 28-29, 52, 54, read in context with “Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46” (26 May 2026) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at ss 320.28(1), 320.28(1)(a), 320.28(1)(a)(i) and “Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46” (26 May 2026) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at ss 320.14(1)(b), 320.28(1), 320.28(1)(a), 320.28(1)(a)(i).
17. What are “reasonable grounds to believe”?
A breath demand for an approved screening device must be immediate.⁴¹
⁴¹ “R. v. Rajasekeran, 2024 ONCJ 228 (CanLII)” (accessed 19 July 2026) at para 25 provides a concise discussion of this point.
18. When must a breath demand be made immediately?
When the breath demand for an approved screening device is based upon a reasonable suspicion, the peace officer must make the breath demand for an approved screening device as soon as the peace officer forms the reasonable suspicion that the person has alcohol in the body,⁴² although unusual circumstances can extend this immediacy.⁴³
When the breath demand for an approved screening device is based upon a mandatory alcohol screening demand, the peace officer can delay in making the breath demand for an approved screening device for approximately one minute while the police officer and the accused have a brief initial conversation.⁴⁴
The fact that an accused is being assessed by EMS is an unusual circumstance justifying delaying a breath demand for an approved screening device.⁴⁵
⁴² “R. v. Khandakar, 2024 ONCA 620 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2024/2024onca620/2024onca620.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 37-38.
⁴³ “R. v. Khandakar, 2024 ONCA 620 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2024/2024onca620/2024onca620.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 1-2, 37-38, 40.
⁴⁴ “R. v. Tandon, 2026 ONCJ 343 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2026/2026oncj343/2026oncj343.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 41, 48-49, read in context with “Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46” (26 May 2026) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at s 320.27(2).
⁴⁵ “R. v. Allen, 2025 ONCJ 350 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2025/2025oncj350/2025oncj350.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 30-32.
19. What is the standard of “demand made as soon as practicable” in the context of a breath demand?
For a breath demand to be made as soon as practicable, the breath demand must have been made within a reasonably prompt time under the circumstances,⁴⁶ which is not identical to as soon as possible and is based upon whether the police acted reasonably, in the context of the entire sequence of events.⁴⁷ The breath demand can be given as soon as practicable by any police officer upon developing reasonable grounds, including by the qualified breath technician after receiving grounds from the arresting officer.⁴⁸ Determining what giving to an accused a breath demand as soon as practicable means in given circumstances seems to take into account, when applicable, whether the non-arresting police officer who eventually gave the breath demand to the accused after a briefer elapsed time than passed before the accused received the first and excessively delayed breath demand made some effort upon learning about the delay in giving the breath demand to ensure that the accused would receive a breath demand within a more reasonable time.⁴⁹
⁴⁶ See, e.g., “R. v. Ara, 2024 ONCJ 211 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj211/2024oncj211.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 3, 41-42.
⁴⁷ See, e.g., “R. v. Ara, 2024 ONCJ 211 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj211/2024oncj211.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 3, 41-42.
⁴⁸ See, e.g., “R. v. Najev, 2021 ONCJ 427 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2021/2021oncj427/2021oncj427.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 79-81.
⁴⁹ “R. v. Coates, 2022 ONSC 3262 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc3262/2022onsc3262.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 26-27, 140-144, 148.
20. What is the standard of “demand made as soon as practicable” in the context of a breath demand?
The offence of failure or refusal to comply with a breath demand is that, knowing that a demand has been made, the accused fails or refuses to comply, without reasonable excuse, with a demand for the accused’s breath.⁵⁰
⁵⁰ “Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46” (26 May 2026) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at ss 320.15(1), 320.28(1), 320.28(1)(a), 320.28(1)(a)(i).
21. What is the offence of failure or refusal to comply with a breath demand?
The essential elements of the offence of failure or refusal to provide a sample are that a lawful demand was made, that the accused knew that the demand was made, and that the accused failed or refused to produce the required sample.⁵¹
⁵¹ “R. v. Arudselvam, 2022 ONCJ 445 (CanLII)” (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 1, 90.
22. What are the essential elements of the offence of failure or refusal to comply with a breath demand?
The Actus Reus (the act) of the offence of failure or refusal to comply with a breath demand is that the accused, having been subjected to a lawful demand, either failed or refused to comply with a breath demand.⁵²
The Mens Rea (the mental state) of the offence of failure or refusal to comply with a breath demand is, depending upon the authority trusted, either that the accused intentionally failed or refused to provide a breath sample,⁵³ or that the accused knew that the accused’s conduct would have the result of not providing a breath sample, although when there is no dispute that the accused was intentionally refusing to provide breath, this uncertainty need not be resolved.⁵⁴
⁵² “R. v. Khandakar, 2024 ONCA 620 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2024/2024onca620/2024onca620.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 17-18.
⁵³ “R. v. Khandakar, 2024 ONCA 620 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2024/2024onca620/2024onca620.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 17, 19.
⁵⁴ “R. v. Khandakar, 2024 ONCA 620 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2024/2024onca620/2024onca620.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 17, 19.
23. What is the Actus Reus of the offence of failure or refusal to comply with a breath demand?
When the only breath demand (or demands) which an accused receives for an approved instrument does not occur as soon as was practicable, the accused has never received a lawful breath demand for an approved instrument.⁵⁵ A breath demand for an approved screening device which is not made immediately is not lawful.⁵⁶
⁵⁵ See, e.g., “R. v. Coates, 2022 ONSC 3262 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc3262/2022onsc3262.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 139, 147-148.
⁵⁶ See, e.g., “R. v. McNair, 2024 ONCJ 217 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj217/2024oncj217.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 129-130, 136, 139.
24. What is the Mens Rea of the offence of failure or refusal to comply with a breath demand?
The failure by a police officer to document in notes the precise warnings which the accused received about the consequences for not submitting to testing may contribute towards the Court’s finding that a reasonable doubt remains about whether the accused received a proper demand from police (that is, a demand which was unmistakably a demand), leading to the accused’s acquittal of failure or refusal to comply with a breath demand.⁵⁷
25. What is a demand for breath which is not made immediately?
When the accused is alleged to have failed or refused to provide a sample, the burden is upon the Crown to prove that the accused’s refusal or failure was unequivocal,⁵⁸ or the accused must be acquitted of failure or refusal to provide a sample.⁵⁹ The Court can assess the accused’s action’s equivocalness even when the accused does not testify,⁶⁰ and the accused has no burden to provide evidence that the accused’s action was equivocal.⁶¹ In this context, to be unequivocal is to be clear and unambiguous and to leave no doubt.⁶² When the accused is alleged to have failed or refused to provide a sample, whether the accused’s refusal to provide a sample was unequivocal relates to the actus reus and mens rea of the offence of failure or refusal to provide a sample.⁶³
⁵⁸ “R. v. Enwright, 2024 ONCJ 176 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj176/2024oncj176.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 5-6.
⁵⁹ “R. v. Enwright, 2024 ONCJ 176 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj176/2024oncj176.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at para 7.
⁶⁰ “R. v. Enwright, 2024 ONCJ 176 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj176/2024oncj176.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 5-7, 60.
⁶¹ “R. v. Enwright, 2024 ONCJ 176 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2024/2024oncj176/2024oncj176.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 5-7, 60.
⁶² “R. v. Arudselvam, 2022 ONCJ 445 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2022/2022oncj445/2022oncj445.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 2, 23.
⁶³ “R v Khandakar, 2024 ONCA 620 at paras 1-3 [Khandakar]. “R. v. Khandakar, 2024 ONCA 620 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2024/2024onca620/2024onca620.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 1, 3.
26. When is a demand not made?
When the accused does not know that the accused has received a breath demand, then the accused’s failure or refusal to comply with a breath demand lacks the mens rea required to convict the accused of failure or refusal to comply with a breath demand.⁶⁴
27. When is a demand refused?
Because elements of the offence of failure or refusal to provide a sample are that a lawful demand was made, that the accused knew that the demand was made, and that the accused failed or refused to produce the required sample,⁶⁵ an accused who does not receive a lawful breath demand can lawfully refuse to despite knowing that the accused received a breath demand but neither having nor claiming to have a reasonable excuse.
28. What is the significance of an accused’s not knowing that the accused has received a demand for a breath sample?
When the lawfulness of an accused’s breath demand for an approved instrument is entirely based upon the accused’s having been subjected to a test on an approved screening device, the accused’s having been subjected to an unlawful test on an approved screening device means that the accused’s breath demand for an approved instrument is unlawful and the accused’s refusal to comply with a breath demand for an approved instrument is not unlawful.⁶⁶
When test on an approved screening device was done with no warrant, the Crown bears the burden of proving that the test on the approved screening device was lawful on a balance of probabilities.⁶⁷ Proof on a balance of probabilities means that the trier of fact must scrutinize the relevant evidence with care in order to determine whether it is more likely than not that an alleged event occurred.⁶⁸
⁶⁶ “R. v. Coutts, 2020 ONSC 3477 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2020/2020onsc3477/2020onsc3477.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 24-34.
⁶⁷ For a concise summary of this point, citing the Supreme Court of Canada, see R v Ortega, 2015 ONCJ 58 at para 36. “R. v. Ortega, 2015 ONCJ 58 (CanLII)” https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2015/2015oncj58/2015oncj58.html (accessed 19 July 2026) at para 36.
⁶⁸ “F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53 (CanLII), [2008] 3 SCR 41” https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc53/2008scc53.html (accessed 17 July 2026) at para 49.
29. When is an accused’s refusal to comply with a breath demand not final?
A reasonable excuse is some circumstance that makes compliance with the breath demand either extremely difficult or likely to involve a substantial risk to the accused’s health.⁶⁹ Once an accused has established that an air of reality exists to a reasonable excuse to the charge of failing to provide a breath sample, the Crown has the burden of disproving that reasonable excuse beyond a reasonable doubt.⁷⁰
The inquiry into whether there is an evidential foundation for a defence is referred to as the air of reality test.⁷¹ The correct approach to the air of reality test is whether there is evidence on the record upon which a properly instructed jury acting reasonably could acquit.⁷² When there is an air of reality to a defence, the defence should go to the trier of fact.⁷³ A defence which lacks an air of reality should be kept from the trier of fact even when the defence lacking an air of reality represents the
accused’s only chance for an acquittal.⁷⁴ A defence possesses an air of reality if a properly instructed jury acting reasonably could acquit the accused on the basis of the defence.⁷⁵ The air of reality test imposes a burden on the accused that is merely evidential, rather than persuasive.⁷⁶ The air of reality test is concerned only with whether a defence should be submitted to the trier of fact for consideration.⁷⁷
The air of reality test does not assess whether the defence is strong, but assesses whether the evidence discloses a real issue to be decided by the trier of fact.⁷⁸
Whether there is an air of reality to a defence is a question of law subject to appellate review. ⁷⁹It is an error of law to put to the trier of fact a defence lacking an air of reality and it is an error of law to keep from the trier of fact a defence that has an air of reality.⁸⁰
In applying the air of reality test, a trial judge considers the totality of the evidence and assumes the evidence relied upon by the accused to be true.⁸¹ The evidential foundation can be indicated by evidence emanating from the examination in chief or cross-examination of the accused, of defence witnesses, or of Crown witnesses, can also rest upon the case’s factual circumstances, or upon any other evidential source on the record.⁸² There is no requirement that the evidence supporting the air of reality be adduced by the accused.⁸³
⁶⁹ “R. v. Cummins, 2021 ONCJ 291 (CanLII)” (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 1-2, 4,
⁷⁰ “R. v. Martin, 2023 ONCJ 219 (CanLII)” (accessed 19 July 2026) at paras 63, 68, 72.
⁷¹ “R. v. Cinous, 2002 SCC 29 (CanLII), [2002] 2 SCR 3” (accessed 18 July 2026) at para 50.
⁷² “R. v. Cinous, 2002 SCC 29 (CanLII), [2002] 2 SCR 3” (accessed 18 July 2026) at para 49.
⁷³ “R. v. Cinous, 2002 SCC 29 (CanLII), [2002] 2 SCR 3” (accessed 18 July 2026) at para 51
⁷⁴“R. v. Cinous, 2002 SCC 29 (CanLII), [2002] 2 SCR 3” (accessed 18 July 2026) at para 51.
⁷⁵ “R. v. Cinous, 2002 SCC 29 (CanLII), [2002] 2 SCR 3” (accessed 18 July 2026) at para 2.
⁷⁶ “R. v. Cinous, 2002 SCC 29 (CanLII), [2002] 2 SCR 3” (accessed 18 July 2026) at para 52.
⁷⁷ “R. v. Cinous, 2002 SCC 29 (CanLII), [2002] 2 SCR 3” (accessed 18 July 2026) at para 52.
⁷⁸ “R. v. Cinous, 2002 SCC 29 (CanLII), [2002] 2 SCR 3” (accessed 18 July 2026) at para 54
⁷⁹ “R. v. Cinous, 2002 SCC 29 (CanLII), [2002] 2 SCR 3” (accessed 18 July 2026) at para 55.
⁸⁰ “R. v. Cinous, 2002 SCC 29 (CanLII), [2002] 2 SCR 3” (accessed 18 July 2026) at para 55.
⁸¹ “R. v. Cinous, 2002 SCC 29 (CanLII), [2002] 2 SCR 3” (accessed 18 July 2026) at para 53.
⁸² “R. v. Cinous, 2002 SCC 29 (CanLII), [2002] 2 SCR 3” (accessed 18 July 2026) at para 53.
⁸³ “R. v. Cinous, 2002 SCC 29 (CanLII), [2002] 2 SCR 3” (accessed 18 July 2026) at para 53.
Contact
1-888-413-7040 24/7
Hours
OnCriminalLaw.com is at your service twenty-four (24) hours a day.
Locations
London
380 Wellington St Tower B, 6th Floor London, ON N6A 5B5
Toronto
20 Bay Street, Suite 1100
Toronto, ON M5J 2N8
Barrie
49 High St 3rd Floor
Barrie, ON L4N 5J4
Ottawa
135 Laurier Ave., W.,
Ottawa, ON K1P 5J2
CRIMINAL CHARGES WITHDRAWN
R. v. B.J.
CHARGES: Assault
“From the moment I spoke with your team, I knew I was in the right hands. You gave me the assurance everything would be attended to and handled with care. Your office has eased all the stress I felt when I was charged. You did everything you said you would, and I am extremely happy. You've gotten my family back together, and I couldn't be more thankful. I have never been in this situation before and am so glad I had your office by my side throughout this process. You made it easy for me. You were prompt. You were professional, and I cannot contain my excitement today. God bless you all.”
-B.J.
CRIMINAL CHARGES WITHDRAWN
R. v. H.K.
CHARGES: Impaired, Over 80
“PHEW, glad it has finally reached a resolution. Really appreciate the work and considerations taken to make my case a success. Needless to say, these have been some of the most stressful times of my life so far. Despite the negative aspects, I will try to take some valuable life lessons from this incident and use it as a positive going forward. Thank you very much, Team, for the efforts you took for my case. I truly cannot thank you enough. I hope everyone at your office stays blessed with health and happiness.”
-H.K.
CRIMINAL CHARGES WITHDRAWN
R. v. W.N.
CHARGES: Assault with a Weapon, Failure to Comply
“This is the greatest result I could ask for! You saved my life. Everyone should know about you guys. Whenever someone is in trouble with the law, you are who they should call. Absolute life saver! Thank you.”
-W.N.
CRIMINAL CHARGES WITHDRAWN
R. v. H.C.
CHARGES: Impaired Operation, Over 80
"If anyone is looking for a lawyer, I highly recommend that they hire this team. Excellent result. And fair with me from the start. Thank you."
-H.C.
CRIMINAL CHARGES WITHDRAWN
R. v. B.E.
CHARGES: Assault Cause Bodily Harm
“I feel completely exonerated. The best thing that could possibly happen in all of this mess. This was all a big baloney sandwich, to begin with, but you were patient and took me through every step of the process. The team was available to me 24 hours a day through the client portal. And although this was stressful, you made it easy and understandable. I’m not the easiest person to get along with. But you were patient and polite, and I thank you for your professionalism and for clearing my name of all of this. I can finally go back to life as normal. Thank you.”
-B.E.
CRIMINAL CHARGES WITHDRAWN
R. v. S.K.
CHARGES: Impaired Operation, Failure to Attend Court
“My father recommended I hire you to handle my impaired driving case...You got all of the criminal charges against me withdrawn. Now I’m recommending that all of my friends contact you when they’re in trouble. Your knowledge and expertise saved me. Thank you.”
-S.K.
CRIMINAL CHARGES WITHDRAWN
R. v. S.C.
CHARGES: Mischief to Property; Theft; Assault
“Criminal Charges were withdrawn before the first court date. Done and gone! No fingerprints or photographs. No criminal record. Wow! These guys are awesome, use them.”
-S.C.
CRIMINAL CHARGES WITHDRAWN
R. v. G.A
CHARGES: Impaired, Over 80, Fail to Remain
“I’m definitely going to recommend you to anyone who gets in this situation. I’m grateful for your help and hard work. This is an excellent result. Thank you.”
-G.A.
CRIMINAL CHARGES WITHDRAWN
R. v. W.C.
CHARGES: Assault, Choking, Forcible Confinement
“I can’t thank you enough for your help. I strongly encourage anyone charged or needing a strong legal representative to call immediately. I can’t recommend you enough. Having never been charged before, with my freedom at stake, I knew I needed an expert. I found you online and spoke with you about my case. You calmed me down and provide guidance throughout the process. You made me feel confident that everything was under control. I’m so relieved this is all behind me. You saved my life. I will never forget what you and your team have done for me and I will continue to sing your praises and recommend you to anyone in need. Thank you.”
-W.C.
NOT GUILTY
R. v. S.G
CHARGES: Impaired Operation, Over 80
“I chose the right lawyer to fight my charges!
Having never been charged with a criminal offence, I was very anxious. But you were an unrelenting lawyer at trial. I’m so relieved to have chosen the right lawyer to fight these charges for me. You were an expert in the courtroom. Thank you. "
-S.G.
