_____________________________________________________________________________

Bill C-46 was assented to on December 18, 2001[1]. The coming into force of this legislation has important consequences with regard to the imposition of driving prohibitions in the Province of Quebec and other provinces[2], such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, where alcohol ignition interlock device[3] programs are also in effect. The enactment allows the court, in its discretion, to authorise offenders, including recidivists, to participate in such programs during the final portion of the driving prohibition periods.

These changes were brought about on account of the legislator's concern that offenders subject to lengthy driving prohibitions continue to drive despite the disqualification. Ignition interlock device programs seek to curtail this problem and improve the supervision of such drivers.[4].

In examining the effect of the amendments, it is helpful to review the repealed provisions and related sections of the Criminal Code as well as the relevant jurisprudence.

I. Federal legislation

A. Mandatory minimum driving prohibition – s. 259(1) Criminal Code

When an offender is convicted for impaired driving, refusal to provide a breath or blood sample, or driving with an unlawful blood alcohol concentration level, s. 259(1) of the Criminal Code requires the court to make an order prohibiting the offender from operating a motor vehicle for specific minimal periods. In the case of a first offence, that period is one year. For a second offence, the minimal prohibition is for two years, and for subsequent offences, it is three years:

Mandatory order of prohibition

259. (1) When an offender is convicted of an offence committed under section 253 or 254 … the court that sentences the offender shall… make an order prohibiting the offender from operating a motor vehicle …

(a) for a first offence, during a period of not more than three years … and not less than one year;

(b) for a second offence, during a period of not more than five years …and not less than two years; and

Ordonnance d'interdiction obligatoire

259 (1) Lorsqu'un contrevenant est déclaré coupable d'une infraction prévue à l'article 253 ou 254 …le tribunal qui lui inflige une peine doit .. .rendre une ordonnance lui interdisant de conduire un véhicule à moteur … :

a) pour une première infraction, durant une période minimale d'un an et maximale de trois ans…;

b) pour une deuxième infraction, durant une période minimale de deux ans et maximale de cinq ans…;

c) pour chaque infraction subséquente, durant une période minimale de trois ans...

This provision was unaltered by Bill C-46 and remains in effect in its entirety.

B. The alcohol ignition interlock exception for first offenders – former s.259(1.1) Criminal Code

Under the repealed s. 259(1.1) of the Criminal Code, the minimum period of not less than one year for first offenders was reduced to a period of three months upon participation for the remainder of the prohibition order in a provincially sponsored program governing the use of alcohol ignition interlock devices:

Exception where Alcohol Ignition Interlock Program

259(1.1) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(a), where … the province … has established a program governing the use of an alcohol ignition interlock device … the minimum period of not less than one year is reduced to a period of not less than three months, if the offender participates in the program during the remainder of the one year period.

Exception pour le programme d'antidémarrage avec éthylomètre

259(1.1) Malgré l'alinéa (1)(a), dans le cas où … la province … a institué un Programme d'utilisation d'antidémarreurs avec éthylomètre …, la période minimale d'un an est ramenée à une période minimale de trois mois, si le contrevenant participe au programme durant le reste de la période d'un an.

C. The application of the exception - an administrative or judicial act?

A controversy existed as to the implementation of this provision. One interpretation considered that the reduction of the prohibition period upon registration in a recognised program did not depend upon an authorisation by the court. In essence, the right to participate was administrative in nature and came about by the mere effect of the law without judicial intervention. As long as the court imposed the minimum prohibition period, the offender was entitled to register in the program. This view was favoured in Quebec.

It appears, however, that the federal government had contemplated otherwise in drafting the provision. The intention of the legislator was to vest in the court the discretion to authorise the offender to operate the motor vehicle equipped with the alcohol ignition interlock device during the latter part of the prohibition period.

Any ambiguity that existed in this regard has now been removed by the enactment of Bill C-46.

D. Inapplicability of the program for second or subsequent offences

Under the former section 259(1.1) of the Criminal Code which has now been repealed by Bill C-46, no provision existed to allow a recidivist to benefit from the alcohol ignition interlock program.

However, the Quebec Court of Appeal, in R. v. Gravelle[5], held that the restriction for repeat offenders was mandatory only if the prosecution conformed to the provisions of s. 727 of the Criminal Code. This stipulation required the prosecution to serve on the defendant before plea a notice seeking greater punishment:

Previous conviction

727. (1) … where an offender is convicted of an offence for which a greater punishment may be imposed by reason of previous convictions, no greater punishment shall be imposed on the offender by reason thereof unless the prosecutor satisfies the court that the offender, before making a plea, was notified that a greater punishment would be sought by reason thereof.

Condamnations antérieures

727. (1) … lorsque le délinquant est déclaré coupable d'une infraction pour laquelle une peine plus sévère peut être infligée du fait de condamnations antérieures, aucune peine plus sévère ne peut lui être infligée de ce fait à moins que le poursuivant ne convainque le tribunal que le délinquant, avant d'enregistrer son plaidoyer, a reçu avis qu'une peine plus sévère serait demandée de ce fait.

The failure to give such notice would allow the court to treat the accused as a first offender. Consequently, no error of law is committed in imposing a prohibition period of one year even where the offender has previous similar convictions. In actual fact the accused, who had pleaded guilty to a hit and run involving a death and driving with an unlawful blood alcohol concentration, had two prior impaired driving convictions, the last one being within the two preceding years. Nevertheless, at par. 23 of the judgment, the majority held as follows:

“Suivant la preuve, l'intimé avait été condamné à deux reprises pour la même infraction avant la survenance des faits visés dans le présent dossier. Cependant, l'avis de récidive de l'article 727 C.cr. n'ayant pas été reçu par l'intimé, le juge de première instance n'a pas erré en droit en imposant une ordonnance d'interdiction de conduire un véhicule à moteur d'une durée d'un an.” (emphasis added)

II. Provincial legislation (Quebec)

A. Mandatory driving permit cancellation

The provincial legislation regarding the cancellation of the driving permit for criminal offences goes hand in hand with the federal legislation. Driving permits are revoked under s. 180 of the Highway Safety Code upon conviction for an offence for impaired driving, refusal to provide a breath or blood sample, driving with an unlawful blood alcohol concentration as well as other criminal offences relating to the use of motor vehicles:

Cancellation of licences - criminal offences

180. Where a person is convicted under the Criminal Code …that person's … licence shall be cancelled if the offence is an offence under
(1) section 220, 221 or 236;
(2) paragraph a of subsection 1, subsection 3 or 4 of section 249 or section 249.1;
(3) subsection 1 of section 252;
(4) section 253, subsection 5 of section 254 or subsection 2 or 3 of section 255.

Révocation de permis – Infractions criminelles

180. Sont révoqués le permis … de conduire d'une personne déclarée coupable d'une infraction au Code criminel …prévue aux articles suivants:
1° les articles 220, 221 ou 236;
2° le sous-paragraphe a du paragraphe 1, les paragraphes 3 ou 4 de l'article 249 ou l'article 249.1;
3° le paragraphe 1 de l'article 252;
4° l'article 253, le paragraphe 5 de l'article 254 ou les paragraphes 2 ou 3 de l'article 255.

B. Restricted permits - exceptions to the cancellation

At the completion of the minimum prohibition period imposed by the court, a driver may obtain a restricted permit for the duration of the cancellation of his permit. Section 76 of the Highway Safety Code authorises the issuance of such a permit subject to having the motor vehicle equipped with an alcohol ignition interlock device:

Restricted licence

76. 2. A person whose licence has been cancelled or whose right to obtain a licence has been suspended following a conviction for an offence referred to in subparagraph 4 of the first paragraph of section 180 may, once no longer subject to an order of prohibition from driving made under subsection 1 or 2 of section 259 of the Criminal Code, be authorised to drive a road vehicle under a restricted licence if the vehicle is equipped with a device, approved by the Société, that is designed to ascertain the presence of alcohol in the driver's body and to prevent the vehicle from being started.

Permis restreint

76. 2. Une personne dont le permis a été révoqué ou dont le droit d'en obtenir un a été suspendu par suite d'une déclaration de culpabilité pour une infraction visée au paragraphe 4° du premier alinéa de l'article 180 peut, dès qu'elle cesse d'être sous le coup d'une ordonnance d'interdiction de conduire rendue en vertu des paragraphes 1 ou 2 de l'article 259 du Code criminel, être autorisée, moyennant l'obtention d'un permis restreint, à conduire un véhicule routier mais uniquement si le véhicule est muni d'un dispositif, agréé par la Société, pouvant mesurer le taux d'alcool dans l'organisme du conducteur et empêcher la mise en marche du véhicule.

III. Repeat offenders under the repealed legislation

The combination of the federal and provincial legislation would therefore generally, under the above provisions, allowed a recidivist to obtain his driving privileges upon the fulfilment of at least these conditions:

- The court imposed a prohibition not exceeding the minimum period of one year; and

- The defendant registered in a recognised alcohol ignition interlock device program.

IV. The new legislation as enacted by Bill C-46

A. Eligibility of repeat offenders

The most salient feature of the recently enacted legislation is to permit recidivists to register in a provincially recognised program. The arguments raised in R. v. Gravelle, supra, with regard to repeat offenders are equally applicable to the new legislation. In order to oblige the court to impose the lengthier minimum period of prohibition, the prosecution must serve a timely notice seeking greater punishment upon the defendant.

B. Residency transfer

Another innovative feature of the new legislation is that the authorisation applies to offenders who transfer residency to another province and register there in a sanctioned program:

Change of province of residence

259(1.3) The authorisation applies to an offender who becomes resident in another province and registers in a program referred to in subsection (1.1) in that province.

Changement de résidence

259(1.3) La permission s'applique au contrevenant qui devient résident d'une autre province s'il s'inscrit à un tel programme dans cette province.

C. Judicial authorisation mandatory

The amendments confer a discretion upon the court to authorise offenders who are subject to driving prohibitions to drive during a portion of the prohibition: The legislation makes it clear that the eligibility to adhere to a provincial program is dependent upon judicial authorisation and is not a purely administrative act:

Alcohol ignition interlock device program

259(1.1) In making the order, the court may authorise the offender to operate a motor vehicle equipped with an alcohol ignition interlock device during the prohibition period if the offender registers in an alcohol ignition interlock device program established under the law of the province in which the offender resides.

Programme d'utilisation d'antidémarreurs avec éthylomètre

259(1.1) Dans son ordonnance, le tribunal peut accorder au contrevenant la permission de conduire, durant la période d'interdiction, un véhicule à moteur équipé d'un antidémarreur avec éthylomètre si ce dernier s'inscrit à un programme d'utilisation d'antidémarreurs avec éthylomètre institué sous le régime juridique de la province où il réside.

D. Judicial determination of the duration of the prohibition period

The court determines the minimum period for which no authorisation is granted. This period varies from 3, 6 or 12 months for a first, second or subsequent offence:

Minimum absolute prohibition period

259(1.2) The authorisation has no effect until the expiry of a period fixed by the court

(a) of at least 3 months, for a first offence;

(b) of at least 6 months, for a second offence; and

Période minimale d'interdiction absolue

259(1.2) La permission ne peut prendre effet qu'après la période fixée par le tribunal, qui ne peut être inférieure à :

a) trois mois, pour la première infraction;

b) six mois, pour la deuxième infraction;

c) douze mois, pour chaque infraction subséquente.

Clearly, this authorisation is conditional to the offender’s adherence to the alcohol ignition interlock device program:

V. The impact of the new legislation

A. Retroactive effect - duties of defence counsel

These amendments apply to all offenders sentenced after the coming into force of the Bill C-46, even though the offences may have been committed prior to December 18, 2001. It is therefore imperative for defence counsel to solicit this judicial authorisation for any defendant to be sentenced subsequent to that date regardless of whether the offence was committed before that date.

B. Failure by the court to exercise its discretion

The consequences of the legislation are clear. A failure by the court to exercise its discretion, even inadvertently, would deprive the offender of the possibility to participate in the alcohol ignition interlock device program. If the court omits to pronounce the authorisation of the device and the provincial authorities register the offender in the program, a prosecution under s. 259(4) of the Criminal Code for operating a motor while disqualified could theoretically be instituted. Thus, any such omissions to make the appropriate order which may occur in the initial implementation phase of the new sentencing provisions would require the court to take corrective measures and rectify the oversight.

[1] An Act to amend the Criminal Code (alcohol ignition interlock device programs) 2001 S.C., c. 37.

[2] As of December 23, 2001, all offenders in Ontario who are eligible to have their driver's licence reinstated must register in an ignition interlock program for at least one year. The Yukon and Manitoba recently passed legislation to allow for the implementation of interlock programs. Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia are considering introducing ignition interlock programs as a mandatory condition of licence reinstatement for all repeat impaired driving offenders and for first offenders with blood alcohol levels of 160mg%. Over 40 U.S. states have such programs, California having passed in 1986 the first law allowing for a pilot project. There are 40,000 interlock devices in use around the world, including 4,500 in Canada.

[3] An ignition interlock is a device that is connected to the vehicle's ignition system and allows the vehicle to operate only when the driver's blood alcohol concentration is below a prescribed limit.

[4] The amendments followed recommendations from the Uniform Law Conference and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Non governmental organisations also supported the changes. On November 27, MADD Canada introduced its report "Taking Back Our Roads" which states that "the ignition interlock provisions of the Criminal Code should be expanded to encourage all impaired driving offenders to participate in an interlock program whether they are first or repeat offenders". Another recommendation from this organisation is to lower the permissible Blood Alcohol Concentration level from 80mg% to 50mg%. In response, the federal Minister of Justice has requested the Justice Committee to look into this initiative. Several countries such as Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Norway, the Netherlands and many others already have 50mg% limits, while Japan, Hungary and Sweden have even lower limits.

[5] [2000] J.Q. no 4040.