The increasing role of provincial administrative sanctions in Canadian impaired driving enforcement

Objective: The object of this study is to document the recent shift in Canadian impaired driving enforcement from federal criminal proceedings to provincial administrative sanctions, examine the deterrent impact of these new administrative measures, and review the numerous legal challenges that they have generated.Methods: This article highlights the expanded role of provincial administrative license suspensions (ALSs) and vehicle impoundments (AVIs) in Canadian impaired driving enforcement, summarizes the evidence of their deterrent impact, and discusses the implications of the related Canadian case law.Results: Provincial administrative sanctions have been used increasingly, both to supplement and replace federal impaired driving charges. Recent experience in British Columbia and Alberta illustrates the potential traffic safety benefits of enacting comprehensive impairment-related roadside administrative measures. In 2010, British Columbia enacted a package of roadside administrative sanctions, which included mandatory ALSs, AVIs, monetary penalties, license-reinstatement fees, and remedial programs. A study conducted two years later reported that alcohol-related fatal crashes had fallen by 52%. Alberta enacted similar provisions, and saw alcohol-related fatalities decrease by 46% within six months of the legislation coming into force. Although effective, these new roadside sanctions generated a flurry of legal challenges. The cases indicate that while the provinces have broad leeway, there are legal limits on their authority to impose onerous administrative sanctions on drivers, particularly if they are based on a single roadside alcohol or drug-screening test.Conclusions: With careful drafting, the provinces can enact cost-effective roadside administrative sanctions that have been shown to significantly reduce impaired driving deaths and injuries. The legality of any administrative sanction will likely depend on its severity, the reliability of the test or evidence upon which it is based, and the extent to which the driver has a meaningful opportunity to challenge the decision.