New Canadian Drinking and Driving (and Boating) Laws

Willhound

I'm posting this both as a heads up to fellow Canadian boaters, and our friends to the south that visit Canadian waters. And as an opportunity to vent on what I think is a serious threat to our civil rights.

I will start by saying that I do not support operating any type of vehicle while under the influence of any kind of drug or alcohol. But after a day on the water and safely anchored for the night we certainly enjoy some cocktails before bed. But not likely any longer.
Canada already had some of the toughest drinking and driving laws on the planet, but with the recent legalization of marijuana use in our country the federal Liberal (Fiberal) government also decided to revise the rules on impaired driving and operation of motor driven vehicles (boats are in this category) mostly to appease the nanny organizations and large police forces that were forecasting impending doom with all the "potheads" that were going to now be on the roads. Reality is, it hasn't happened. To understand this, our friends in the US need to know that the Liberal political party could best be described as "socialist democrat". Their mantra is that "everyone is equal and everyone must be protected for their own good". Big Brother at its' finest. But politics aside, let's move forward.

This story best describes what is now in place. These provisions were buried way deep in the new legislation and not debated much publicly, so most people were taken by surprise.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/canadians-could-now-be-charged-with-drunk-driving-even-if-not-drunk-lawyers-warn-1.4975008

Now, how does this apply to boating? Well, think of this. You've been boating all day, anchor for the night and are legally able to consume alcohol on board as long as anchored, engine off, have a fixed head and a galley or cooking facilities. After a few quick drinks, maybe up to 2 hours later you are approached by law enforcement and are forced by
law to provide a breath sample. Refusal is equivalent to admitting guilt. You blow over. You are immediately charged with a felony charge of impaired operation of a motor vehicle, even though you are not actually operating that vehicle.
It gets better (or worse) in that the new law was written with a "reverse onus" provision in that law enforcement is not required to prove that you were operating under the influence, rather it is up to you to prove you were not. How the **** do you do that? And, to make it even stickier, although the law mentions a 2 hour period, how do you prove you were or weren't operating in the previous two hours? Show them your GPS time stamp?
Oh wait, there's more. Another part of the new law concerns new rules on "Care and Control" in that the operator of a motor vehicle who is in a position of control of that vehicle can be charged with Care and Control while under the Influence. In other words, it's the middle of the night, you are fast asleep maybe sleeping off the effects of a great anchor up, and if found to be impaired, but obviously not been anywhere, can still be charged and convicted. Not quite as serious as an Impaired, but still affects your insurance and driving record. To take it further, these laws even apply on private property. You can be spending the night at your slip in the marina, having some drinks, and if the law rolls up, again, Care and Control.
Oh, and even better. Although there have been changes proposed, the definition of a "Motor Vehicle" as it applies to boating includes canoes, paddle boards, paddle boats and sail boats.

This is so ridiculous as to almost not be believable, but believe me, it is real. The legal community feels that the law will eventually be struck down as contravening our Charter of Rights and Freedoms (like the US Constitution) but this could take up to several years.

Ok, the realistic side of me wants to think that any cop with half a brain and if the operator is being reasonable, there should be no issue. But I've seen too many in positions of authority that in fact do not have half a brain and feel like they have a point to prove. This is not a poke at law enforcement personnel. I have the utmost respect for what they do, and put up with. In fact I have several friends in law enforcement and even they acknowledge that while ludicrous, they will be in a position of having to enforce. 

Ian

One line response - don’t drink and drive anything. 

Willhound

icoultha said:

One line response - don’t drink and drive anything. 

Agree totally. But the premise of my post is that at any time, anywhere, we can now be charged for impaired just for being on our boat. Driving it has nothing to do with it. Sitting, anchored for the night. Not so simple.

LaRea

@Willhound I get what you are saying.  You can't be "operating" a vessel unless the vessel is underway.  An anchored or slipped vessel isn't underway.  If they are trying to redefine what underway means, good luck with that.  

Handymans342

You can be drunk and sleeping in your backseat and still get busted. Good reason to leave Canada

mattie

Everything is so overdone anymore. Really disappointing. Where we boat we continually straddle the border. There is a crazy amount of law enforcement - Customs & Border Protection, Sheriff, RCMP, Police, Coast Guard.....nuts.
The silly part is that the local pleasure boaters never go more than a few miles from home port. It is the same people getting boarded by law and repeatedly checked.
A colossal waste of taxpayer money.
This is another example......

GMSLITHO

The government is tooooooo big 

LaRea

Let's dig down to the next level.

The article says the purpose of the law is to close the "bolus drinking" loophole:  you admit to drinking and driving, but you claim that your plan was to finish driving before the alcohol kicked in.  In other words, you were still sober while driving, but by the time they administered the BAC test, you were drunk. 

A driver who would do that needs to be off the streets, and I can see why people would want to close that loophole.  But the solution they picked seems like a terrible, badly-conceived law that will never stand up in court.  And really, how many cases actually use the bolus defense?  

I'm actually surprised the media in the US haven't already picked up on this story.  

Handymans342

I agree because the media controls the narrative

Willhound

@LaRea that loophole is one they mention, but the big one that wasn't mentioned was the driver that leaves the bar fully loaded, somehow makes it home and by the time the law shows up on his doorstep he comes to the door guzzling a double whiskey and suddenly they couldn't prove he was driving drunk. Have also been cases of drivers pulling a mickey out of their pants right in the back of the cruiser and downing it. Ticks the law enforcement right off, as it should. That's why anyone that gets pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving is now immediately cuffed until they search you.
So I understand the intent, but the way this could be abused is many and varied for sure. As a responsible driver I always Uber if going out for an evening but as a boater this scares the crap out of me in how I can be arrested for just enjoying a few drinks after anchoring for the night, or even just sitting at a slip someplace.

LaRea

(Not like this issue is new ... I first heard of the bolus defense at least 35 years ago.)

If you guys are right and the law does not differentiate between an underway boat and a boat that is moored, slipped or anchored, it's doomed to be overturned.  What do you say to the live-aboards?  "Hey felons, live ashore or quit drinking!"

randy56

Another way our government and your is taking away our rights. So I'm the DD and driving your boat then what. 

Black_Diamond

You can be drunk and sleeping in the backseat of your car in the USA and get a DUI. Even walking to yiur car with your car keys. 

It’s all about the money for the po-po folks. 

212rowboat

Maybe its a time to consider a camera with a clock... Set it up to view the helm... Flip on on when its time to get your drink on.  Maybe it will hold up in court, maybe it won't, but perhaps its a solution to those of us doing nothing wrong while hooked up.... 

Willhound

I'll be at the Toronto Boat Show next Saturday. The OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) will be in attendance. Might have a friendly chat to get their view on all this while there. I do know that with an automobile a Care and Control charge vs. and Impaired charge centres on whether the keys are in your pocket and/or available versus in the ignition. My boat keys never leave the ignition while on the water. Both so I always know where they are, but also because the Accessory position runs my stereo and GPS with anchor alarm set.

LaRea

You should.  And please tell them your boating friends, local and international, are confused and interested in their thoughts.  

Michael T

Incorrect interpretation - IMO.

In Canada you were and still will be entitled to consume alcohol on a moored (anchored) boat up to the point of poisoning yourself as long as you are anchored. No Police Officer could legally (in the past) nor will they be able to charge you with a DUI - nor would they bother.

Land vehicle use is different. If you are sitting in your car (or anything classified as a motor vehicle) and have thrown the keys into the ditch you could (in the past) and can still be charged with care and control of the vehicle and therefore subject to DUI legislation. This has not changed. In fact nothing has changed regarding boating and DUI legislation.

What has changed - BUT - remains to be tested in court is whether or not you can be stopped while in care and control of a motor vehicle (land-based) without what used to be termed probable cause - that would be defined as some sort of obvious impairment.

I agree with you that the Canadian Liberal Government is comprised of a bunch of "socialistic" idiots.

What perplexes me is why you would listen to anything reported by the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting System) which is IMO a Liberal Party behind kissing bunch of apologists bereft of a measurable I.Q.

Three Police Officers in my family who will tell you they don't even have the time to deal with serious crime yet alone go looking for trouble.....and if they wanted probable cause to stop a vehicle - let me ask you this - do you observe how most of the driving population operate motor vehicles? How long do you think it would take to "find" probable cause when it appears that 90% of the drivers, don't signal, stop properly at stop signs, run lights........

Relax - it's still good. Except, of course, for that moron Trudeau and his Liberal Party socialist idiot friends.

MarkB

icoultha said:

One line response - don’t drink and drive anything. 

That's not the point.  Here you can NOT drink and drive, and be charged with drinking and driving. 

Here's a scenario ... you get home from work completely sober. You crack open a beer or glass of wine and down it at your dinner table. 5 minutes later cops show up saying someone saw you veer off a lane for a second (you sneezed) ... say they want a breathalyzer test ... you refuse because you say you were at work and never had a drink ... you get charged with impair driving.

OK, so you agree to the breathalyzer ... you blow ... over because you just had the drink ... you get charged with impair driving.

The outcome, no matter what, whether you did the right thing or not ... you get charged with impaired driving.

You think it won't stand up in court ... well, you have to prove that you didn't drink while driving home (without a doubt) ... no witnesses ... how you going to do that???

If you're lucky ... it gets over-turned in court.  But the record of a dropped charge is still there.  Say you need to get a police clearance because you are a doctor, sports coach, teacher, nurse, paramedic, etc.  and even more scrutiny if you are dealing with vulnerable persons (old age home, children's hockey coach, teacher, etc.) ... dropped charge shows up ... can't get clearance ... can't continue working ... you're done.

Stupid laws screw up people's lives ... yes, it is possible for laws to go too far, and this is proof!

MarkB

LaRea said:

@Willhound I get what you are saying.  You can't be "operating" a vessel unless the vessel is underway.  An anchored or slipped vessel isn't underway.  If they are trying to redefine what underway means, good luck with that.  

They aren't arguing that.  This is the key issue, right here:

They can ask you for a breathalyzer up to 2 hours AFTER you've been driving. If that breathalyzer shows you're over ... they automatically assume you drank before you drove ... and charge you.  And then you have to prove you didn't have the drink before you drove!  It's crazy.

MarkB

Here's another scenario .... you drive to a bar completely sober to meet someone.  Your jealous girlfriend is pi$$ed thinking you are cheating on her, and calls the cops saying you drove drunk.  You've been at the bar for 90 minutes and have had 3 beers ... cops show up and ask for a breathalyzer, you blow over. Charged with impair driving. 

You say, but hold on, he was over, how did he plan on getting home ... can anyone spell UBER?  But no, you still get charged with impair driving.

Yes, this is real.

Glassguy54

I always thought that in this country (US), you were presumed innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof is upon the state, not the individual. In countries where the Napoleonic code prevails, the opposite is true, presumed guilty until proven innocent. I don't know how it could be proven that you were driving impaired if you were sober, got home, had a couple of cocktails and the police show up claiming someone saw you driving impaired, and the police tried to cite/arrest you. That would be gestapo, police state B.S. IMO.

randy56

Michael T said:

Incorrect interpretation - IMO.

In Canada you were and still will be entitled to consume alcohol on a moored (anchored) boat up to the point of poisoning yourself as long as you are anchored. No Police Officer could legally (in the past) nor will they be able to charge you with a DUI - nor would they bother.

Land vehicle use is different. If you are sitting in your car (or anything classified as a motor vehicle) and have thrown the keys into the ditch you could (in the past) and can still be charged with care and control of the vehicle and therefore subject to DUI legislation. This has not changed. In fact nothing has changed regarding boating and DUI legislation.

What has changed - BUT - remains to be tested in court is whether or not you can be stopped while in care and control of a motor vehicle (land-based) without what used to be termed probable cause - that would be defined as some sort of obvious impairment.

I agree with you that the Canadian Liberal Government is comprised of a bunch of "socialistic" idiots.

What perplexes me is why you would listen to anything reported by the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting System) which is IMO a Liberal Party behind kissing bunch of apologists bereft of a measurable I.Q.

Three Police Officers in my family who will tell you they don't even have the time to deal with serious crime yet alone go looking for trouble.....and if they wanted probable cause to stop a vehicle - let me ask you this - do you observe how most of the driving population operate motor vehicles? How long do you think it would take to "find" probable cause when it appears that 90% of the drivers, don't signal, stop properly at stop signs, run lights........

Relax - it's still good. Except, of course, for that moron Trudeau and his Liberal Party socialist idiot friends.

We have a moron also, and his name start's with a T also.

MarkB

Glassguy54 said:

I always thought that in this country (US), you were presumed innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof is upon the state, not the individual. In countries where the Napoleonic code prevails, the opposite is true, presumed guilty until proven innocent. I don't know how it could be proven that you were driving impaired if you were sober, got home, had a couple of cocktails and the police show up claiming someone saw you driving impaired, and the police tried to cite/arrest you. That would be gestapo, police state B.S. IMO.

This is a new law in Canada.

Michael T

Faaaar too much drama - no Police Officer in Ontario (or any other Province) will ever turn-up at someone's house to test them for DUI unless they are out on the front lawn, naked and mooning their neighbors. 

If you are not seated in "care and control" of a designated motor vehicle or are in a boat that is anchored - you have nothing to worry about.

About 5 years ago an enthusiastic young Officer where I live tried to charge the owner of a car who was seated in the passenger seat asleep and drunk. It never made it past the first court hearing. Nothing could be proved. The Judge was pi$$ed that common sense had not been applied.

Too much drama about nothing - keep calm and carry on! Don't stop installing those awesome liquor storage cabinets in those Rinker T.V. cabinets with tambour doors and drink with pride (while anchored).

Michael T

Randy56, maybe so but out moron isn't trying to stop China from stealing our industrial/intellectual property and dumping cheap products thereby destroying what's left of our industrial sector and our moron sure as h3ll has no idea how to motivate investment/stock market. At least you guys have a chance - we're scr3wed until the next election!

Willhound

@Michael T I want to agree with you and sincerely hope that you are correct that no right thinking Officer would bang on your door demanding a breath sample up to two hours after you arrived home, or docked/anchored your boat. But the reality is this new law is now definitely in place across Canada. Guaranteed it will get used.

Michael T

@Willhound, please don't be overly worried. There are three Police Officers and several lawyers in my family. How many times do you think this type of conversation has taken place?

Here's the deal - the police could ALWAYS turn-up at your house if several witnesses said you had caused an accident or driven dangerously threatening life - particularly in these days of cell phone videos.

That said, they face a huge hurdle doing that. If and I say if they do go to the alleged perpetrator's house that person can/usually states they were fine until they got home then had a couple of drinks/tokes.

There is no reliable test - yet acceptable to court (think burden of proof) - to clearly tie metabolized alcohol/drugs to specific time lines due to unique physiological human profiles. Even if a crown attorney/prosecutor would take this the judge would likely toss it right away.

This is a tempest in a teacup or shot glass or bong (lol) this is not going to happen with any greater frequency that it has in the past.

As I said the one change we can see is the removal of "probable cause" which was never really a problem anyway - it's just too easy to stop some moron if a Police Officer needs to. Just follow the goof for a couple of blocks.

Seriously, time to forget this and think Spring boating! 

mvn

randy56 said:

We have a moron also, and his name start's with a T also.

Gladly trade our T for your T all day long.

Mark

MarkB

Michael T said:

Faaaar too much drama - no Police Officer in Ontario (or any other Province) will ever turn-up at someone's house to test them for DUI unless they are out on the front lawn, naked and mooning their neighbors. 

If you are not seated in "care and control" of a designated motor vehicle or are in a boat that is anchored - you have nothing to worry about.

About 5 years ago an enthusiastic young Officer where I live tried to charge the owner of a car who was seated in the passenger seat asleep and drunk. It never made it past the first court hearing. Nothing could be proved. The Judge was pi$$ed that common sense had not been applied.

Too much drama about nothing - keep calm and carry on! Don't stop installing those awesome liquor storage cabinets in those Rinker T.V. cabinets with tambour doors and drink with pride (while anchored).

I have several friends who are officers. One is a VERY good friend. I respect the cops. But there are cops out there too that don't live up to the integrity of their uniform, that ruin it for the 99% good cops. Look at the Toronto cops that slept with a passed out rookie cop. Or the one that shot Sammy Yatim. Or cops that steal drugs/money during raids. Or the one that ate edibles??

So, it wouldn't surprise me if one (or a few) took advantage of this law to appease themselves on a bad day. 

Besides ... if it doesn't make sense, why have the law then? It just bogs down our legal system, and ruins people's lives.

Yes, what you present above is the exact argument I'd use to defend myself ... but why should anyone have to go through that, and with a dropped charge on record, good luck getting a police clearance with background checks for working with vulnerable individuals.  I assistant coach my son's hockey team ... one stupid charge like this, and that would be the end of it.  For some, like nurses, it would be the end of their careers.

The politicians tried to fix a gap, came up with a weak law without due diligence, approved it, and now created the opportunity for a mess.  And that's what I'm more upset about ... they are just pushing this crap into our system without DUE DILIGENCE! It is negligent behavior for a politician to do this, especially when the bill is contrary to our Charter (it tells me they do not understand or care about our rights)!

MarkB

Michael T said:

Randy56, maybe so but out moron isn't trying to stop China from stealing our industrial/intellectual property and dumping cheap products thereby destroying what's left of our industrial sector and our moron sure as h3ll has no idea how to motivate investment/stock market. At least you guys have a chance - we're scr3wed until the next election!

Yeah and our moron IS spending all our money outside of the country, never to be seen again! 

Michael T

Mark, if everyone in a position of authority (and I was in one near the top of my food chain at one time) enforced to the "letter of whatever law" what they were in charge of life would grind to a halt. There are petty emperors everywhere but the checks and balances take care of 99% of it. IMO there is far too much concern over an untested "law" that will likely never be enforced as worried about. I'm far more worried about the morons who text and drive. At least five times while driving the 401 over the Christmas Holidays (can I still use that term?) we had to react quickly to a texting driver swerving around the lanes - that worries me more!