News   Mar 28, 2024
 406     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 372     1 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 722     0 

LCBO / The Beer Store

Should the LCBO be deregulated?


  • Total voters
    169
  • Poll closed .
I finally took the opportunity to read the legislation, which is what I probably should have done first. Breath analysis legislation has always had a provision that, if both tests were taken within two hours of the offence, then they were presumptive evidence of the blood-alcohol at the time of the offence. In recent years, several popular defences have been advanced, including 'power drinking just before driving' (it's a bodily absorption,sciency thing). The way I read the new legislation, it changes the 'two hour thing' from a legal presumption - which can be argued against - to a substantive part of the offence - which can't (absent successful appeals). There is actually a pretty good FAQ on the Justice Canada website:
. . .

Why was the offence of driving over the legal limit (the "over 80" offence) broadened so as to capture drivers who were at or over 80 "within two hours of driving"?
The offence of "operating at or over 80 within two hours of driving" eliminates the bolus drinking defense by changing the time frame within which the offence can be committed. It is no longer relevant that the person's blood alcohol concentration may have been below 80 mg at the time of driving.
What is the bolus drinking defence and why was it eliminated?

"Bolus drinking" refers to situations where a driver claims that, although they consumed alcohol just before or during driving, they were not over the legal limit while driving because the alcohol was not fully absorbed until the time of testing. This defence rewards the risky behaviour of drinking immediately before or during driving in the hopes of arriving at a destination before being too drunk to drive or being at the offence level.

The new law changed the timeframe of the offence (i.e., to being at or over the offence level within two hours of driving). Therefore, the argument that alcohol was still being absorbed has become irrelevant.
What is the intervening drink defence and why was it restricted?
The "intervening drink defence” refers to situations where a driver consumes alcohol after driving but before providing a breath sample at the police station. This conduct is often intentional and done to interfere with the breath testing process.

By changing the timeframe of the offence (i.e., to being at or over the offence level within two hours), the argument that post-consumption alcohol was the cause of the high blood alcohol concentration is no longer relevant. Recognizing that there may be situations where the post-driving consumption of alcohol was innocently done, the legislation provided a limited exception, (i.e., the driver drank after driving and had no reason to expect that they would be required to provide a sample of breath).
. . .


Legislation is regularly amended to counter entrenched defence arguments. This is not sneaky or abusive; the goal is to make and keep the act illegal.

However, in spite of what some media and media-loving lawyers are reporting, I can find no provision for the police to make a breath demand not in conjunction with a vehicle stop, so subject to being corrected, I see no authority to make a breath demand at somebody's front door.
 
I finally took the opportunity to read the legislation, which is what I probably should have done first. Breath analysis legislation has always had a provision that, if both tests were taken within two hours of the offence, then they were presumptive evidence of the blood-alcohol at the time of the offence. In recent years, several popular defences have been advanced, including 'power drinking just before driving' (it's a bodily absorption,sciency thing). The way I read the new legislation, it changes the 'two hour thing' from a legal presumption - which can be argued against - to a substantive part of the offence - which can't (absent successful appeals). There is actually a pretty good FAQ on the Justice Canada website:
. . .

Why was the offence of driving over the legal limit (the "over 80" offence) broadened so as to capture drivers who were at or over 80 "within two hours of driving"?
The offence of "operating at or over 80 within two hours of driving" eliminates the bolus drinking defense by changing the time frame within which the offence can be committed. It is no longer relevant that the person's blood alcohol concentration may have been below 80 mg at the time of driving.
What is the bolus drinking defence and why was it eliminated?

"Bolus drinking" refers to situations where a driver claims that, although they consumed alcohol just before or during driving, they were not over the legal limit while driving because the alcohol was not fully absorbed until the time of testing. This defence rewards the risky behaviour of drinking immediately before or during driving in the hopes of arriving at a destination before being too drunk to drive or being at the offence level.

The new law changed the timeframe of the offence (i.e., to being at or over the offence level within two hours of driving). Therefore, the argument that alcohol was still being absorbed has become irrelevant.
What is the intervening drink defence and why was it restricted?
The "intervening drink defence” refers to situations where a driver consumes alcohol after driving but before providing a breath sample at the police station. This conduct is often intentional and done to interfere with the breath testing process.


By changing the timeframe of the offence (i.e., to being at or over the offence level within two hours), the argument that post-consumption alcohol was the cause of the high blood alcohol concentration is no longer relevant. Recognizing that there may be situations where the post-driving consumption of alcohol was innocently done, the legislation provided a limited exception, (i.e., the driver drank after driving and had no reason to expect that they would be required to provide a sample of breath).
. . .


Legislation is regularly amended to counter entrenched defence arguments. This is not sneaky or abusive; the goal is to make and keep the act illegal.

However, in spite of what some media and media-loving lawyers are reporting, I can find no provision for the police to make a breath demand not in conjunction with a vehicle stop, so subject to being corrected, I see no authority to make a breath demand at somebody's front door.

Hold it. I'm loving a post again!

Someone commenting on legislation read the bill! :D

This is how its done!
 
Hold it. I'm loving a post again!

Someone commenting on legislation read the bill! :D

This is how its done!

Thanks but I may or may not have to walk it back a bit. I've been doing some more reading and am getting conflicting texts between government websites related to the 'Criminal Code of Canada' and the amending legislation (Bill C-46). I would assume everything would be up to date but I can't reconcile the variations - it may be me.

The version I referenced says that you have to be operating a vehicle and "lawfully stopped" for a demand for a road alcohol screening device test to be made. The requirements for things like standard sobriety tests, Drug Recognition Examiner evaluations seem to be looser. One would hope that reasonable application of the new legislation will prevail; i.e. a clear connect between 'you now and you behind the wheel', but history often proves us wrong. Hopefully this won't turn into a 'carding-by-other-means' situation (although having said that there is still no requirement to identify yourself on the street). None of this implies that the police can come into your house; there are very strong constitutional limits on the state entering a dwelling house, certainly not for an investigative procedure.

All of that to say I'm still not clear. Virtually every word and comma of the previous drinking-driving legislation has been argued to the Supreme Court, and this new legislation will add to that. Criminal lawyers rejoice!
 
Hold it. I'm loving a post again!

Someone commenting on legislation read the bill! :D

This is how its done!

Why don't YOU read it for yourself. You will be as confused as the rest of us. You think the CBC wouldn't do their research? They aint some mickey mouse news site.
 
How actuate are the personal breathalysers? Or should bars and LCBO have them available to test ourselves?

I honestly don't know anything about breath analysis devices available to the general public. The problem isn't their designed accuracy but the maintenance and confirmation of it. Roadside screening devices and breath analysis devices ('Intoxilizer') have to be 'proven' on a regular basis to maintain their validity for court, and those records have to be made available for disclosure and trial. There is no way in heck a commercial establishment is going to maintain that and stand behind a result of any device they have. There would have to be a wall of disclaimers posted by every device.

As far the accuracy of reporting, larger media have their own 'legal analysts', which is really just a journalistic specialty, and a lot of the media are quoting defence counsel, who obviously have their own read and angle, as does the Crown. They will all be opinions, no matter how learned, until senior courts get their minds on the matters.
 
Toronto cops now in stores. On Friday I was in the Parliament St. LCBO and pleased to see the officer there and the positive impact it had on the vibe of the store and staff. No nutbars or drunks harrasing the staff. Now if we can just be rid of the beggars that seem to encamp out front every downtown location.
 
Toronto cops now in stores. On Friday I was in the Parliament St. LCBO and pleased to see the officer there and the positive impact it had on the vibe of the store and staff. No nutbars or drunks harrasing the staff. Now if we can just be rid of the beggars that seem to encamp out front every downtown location.

I hope it's short term. The money the LCBO is going to waste on paid duty cops, could have been spent on a better security system. You put one cop in every LCBO in Toronto at the paid duty rate of $66 an hour, that would cost the taxpayers around $1000 or more for just one hour of work!
 
Last edited:
I hope it's short term. The money the LCBO is going to waste on paid duty cops, could have been spent on a better security system. You put one cop in every LCBO in Toronto at the paid duty rate of $66 an hour, that would cost the taxpayers around $1000 or more for just one hour of work!
The solution is to privatize liquor sales in Ontario. Let the shop owner defend his inventory, same as any other shop. Put wine and hard booze in supermarkets - Loblaws won’t put up with thieving.
 

Back
Top