Goodwin v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles)

Goodwin v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles)

2015 SCC 46
Supreme Court of Canada — Karakatsanis J. (majority), McLachlin C.J. (dissenting in part) | October 16, 2015

Background

In 2010, British Columbia introduced the Automatic Roadside Prohibition (ARP) scheme — a dramatic shift from taking suspected drunk drivers to the station for breathalyzer tests to issuing immediate suspensions based solely on roadside screening devices. Under the scheme, a "fail" reading (over 0.08) resulted in an immediate 90-day licence suspension, vehicle impoundment, and over $4,000 in penalties and costs. A "warn" reading (0.05-0.08) triggered shorter suspensions.

Multiple drivers challenged the scheme after receiving prohibitions. Richard Goodwin failed to provide an adequate breath sample, while Jamie Chisholm, Carol Beam, and Scott Roberts all registered "fail" readings. Each faced the full consequences with extremely limited review options — the Superintendent could only consider whether they were "drivers" and whether the device registered the reading it claimed to register.

Issues

1. Is the ARP scheme ultra vires (beyond) the province's constitutional authority as criminal law?
2. Does the scheme violate Charter section 11(d) by creating an "offence" without presumption of innocence?
3. Does the scheme violate Charter section 8 protection against unreasonable search and seizure?

The Section 8 Violation

The majority found the "fail" branch of the ARP scheme violated section 8. The critical flaw was reliability: roadside screening devices are known to produce false positives when mouth alcohol is present, yet the scheme provided no meaningful way to challenge the accuracy of the result. Unlike criminal proceedings where an ASD test merely provides grounds for a more reliable breathalyzer test at the station, the ARP scheme made the potentially unreliable roadside result determinative of serious consequences.

The court emphasized that while the government's purpose (preventing impaired driving deaths) was pressing and substantial, and the breath seizure was minimally intrusive, the absence of adequate review mechanisms rendered the scheme unreasonable. A driver could face "serious administrative sanctions without the precondition for the sanctions being met, and without any mechanism for redress." The scheme failed the minimal impairment test under section 1 because subsequent legislative amendments proved that better review procedures could be implemented without undermining the program's objectives.

Key Takeaway

Even regulatory schemes with important public safety goals must provide meaningful ways to challenge the accuracy of the evidence used against you.

While this case dealt with provincial driving prohibitions rather than Provincial Offences Act charges, it establishes that Charter section 8 protections apply when government relies on potentially unreliable testing methods without adequate safeguards for review and challenge.