Turn to Defending Drinking, Drugs and Driving Cases 2022 as a guide on how to defend a client charged with a drinking and driving offence. This practical book by prominent criminal defence lawyer Alan D. Gold offers advice on the entire the process, including how to handle a phone call from the police station, factual issues to note, novel defences, the relevant law, and sentencing.

All significant case law developments that had taken place since the last edition have been incorporated into commentary revisions, and include the following decisions:

• R. v. Anderson (Ont. C.J.) For detention to remain within constitutionally permissible limits, t he court held former subs. 254(2) to have implicitly required that the screening device demand be made by a peace officer forthwith after the requisite suspicion arises and for the demanded sample to be provided forthwith.
• R. v. Campbell (Ont. C.J.) The court acquitted the accused of refusing an Intoxilyzer demand after the officer had failed to establish what he had said to the accused while giving the demand.
• R. v. Goldson (Alta. Q.B.) The court found the para. 320.31(1)(a) requirement for the system-calibration check results to accord with the target alcohol standard certified by an analyst may be satisfied by the Crown through the viva voce testimony of the qualified technician who had performed the check and taken the breath samples.
• R. v. McCormack (N.L. S.C.) The court held the accuseds s. 9 Charter rights to have been breached by being locked in a police vehicle when this was not reasonably necessary for the police to carry out its duties.
• R. v. Menezes (Ont. S.C.) According to the court, the Crown bears the onus of establishing reasonable opportunity for the accused to consult counsel prior to the alcohol screening demand.
• R. v. Paterson (Sask. Prov. Ct.) The court stayed proceedings after having found improper privacy violations involving videotaping the accuseds use of bathroom facilties.
• R. v. Roberts (Y.T. Terr. Ct.) The court held a proper warning to be required even in circumstances where the detainee changes his or her mind about speaking with legal counsel prior to making any actual efforts to do so.
• R. v. Singh (Alta. Prov. Ct.) The court held samples of breath in subs. 320.27(2) of the Criminal Code not to require multiple screening device samples to be taken.