Tel: 416-937-3777
avi@baratzlaw.com
5000 Yonge Street
Suite 1901
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 7E9
Baratz Law © 2026
Tel: 416-937-3777
avi@baratzlaw.com
5000 Yonge Street
Suite 1901
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 7E9
Baratz Law © 2026
Under the Criminal Code, it is an offence to operate a conveyance while a person’s ability to do so is impaired to any degree by alcohol, a drug or a combination of alcohol and drugs. A conveyance includes a motor vehicle, boat, aircraft and railway equipment.
Impairment does not have to be proved solely through a breath or blood reading. The Crown may rely on evidence such as driving behaviour, a collision, difficulty following instructions, balance or coordination problems, slurred speech, glassy eyes, the odour of alcohol, admissions made to police and observations recorded by officers or other witnesses.
Canadian law does not require the Crown to prove that a person was incapable of driving. The allegation may be based on evidence that alcohol or drugs impaired the person’s ability to operate a vehicle to some degree. Whether the evidence establishes impairment beyond a reasonable doubt depends on the facts of the case.
“Over 80” is a common name for the offence of operating a conveyance with a blood-alcohol concentration of 80 milligrams or more of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. The current offence addresses a prohibited blood-alcohol concentration within two hours after operating a conveyance, subject to limited statutory exceptions.
An Over 80 charge is related to impaired driving but is not identical to it. An impaired-driving allegation focuses on whether alcohol or drugs affected a person’s ability to operate a vehicle. An Over 80 allegation focuses on the person’s blood-alcohol concentration within the legally defined period.
Someone may therefore face both allegations arising from the same incident. Conversely, a person could be accused of impairment even if the available evidence does not establish a blood-alcohol concentration at or above the criminal limit.
Impaired-driving investigations often begin with a traffic stop, sobriety checkpoint, collision investigation or report from another driver. An officer may ask questions and observe the driver for possible signs of alcohol or drug consumption.
Canada’s mandatory alcohol-screening provisions permit a police officer who has an approved screening device available to demand a roadside breath sample from a driver who has been lawfully stopped, even when the officer does not first have a specific suspicion that the driver consumed alcohol.
Depending on the result of the roadside screening and the officer’s observations, the driver may be arrested and taken to a police station or testing facility. Police may then demand breath samples for analysis using an approved instrument. Those results may form an important part of the Crown’s case.
Although breath-testing technology is widely used, the surrounding investigation must still comply with the Criminal Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The timing of the demands, the wording used by police, access to legal counsel, continuity of the samples and the operation of the testing equipment may all require careful review.
A person can be charged with impaired driving because of cannabis, illegal drugs, prescription medication, over-the-counter medication or a combination of substances. A medication does not have to be illegal to become relevant to an impaired-driving investigation.
Police investigating suspected drug impairment may use roadside observations, standardized field sobriety tests, an approved drug-screening device or an evaluation conducted by a trained Drug Recognition Expert, commonly called a DRE. In some circumstances, police may also demand a blood, urine or oral-fluid sample.
A DRE evaluation can include interviews, physical observations, divided-attention tests, examinations of the eyes, pulse measurements and other procedures intended to help the evaluator identify categories of drugs that may be affecting the person.
Drug-impaired driving cases can involve difficult questions about whether a substance caused impairment, when it was consumed, whether the evaluation was administered correctly and whether medical conditions could explain the observations attributed to drug use.
Refusing or failing to comply with a lawful police demand without a reasonable excuse is a separate criminal offence. The allegation may involve a roadside screening test, an approved-instrument breath test, a blood sample, an oral-fluid sample or participation in a drug-recognition evaluation.
A refusal does not always involve someone expressly saying “no.” Police may allege a failure or refusal when a person does not provide a suitable sample, delays repeatedly, does not follow instructions or stops participating in the testing process.
These cases require close examination of whether the demand was lawful, whether it was communicated clearly, whether the person understood what was required and whether there was a genuine medical, physical or other reasonable explanation for the failure to comply.
A refusal conviction can carry consequences comparable to, and in some respects more serious than, those associated with an impaired-driving conviction. Anyone accused of refusing a demand should obtain legal advice before deciding how to respond to the charge.
A police officer does not necessarily have to see a vehicle moving before an impaired-driving charge can be laid. Investigations sometimes arise when a person is found asleep or sitting in a parked vehicle.
The legal analysis may include whether the accused was operating the vehicle, whether there was a realistic risk that the vehicle could be set in motion and whether the evidence supports the required connection between the accused and the conveyance.
The location of the person, possession of the keys, the condition of the vehicle, the person’s intentions and other surrounding circumstances may become important. These cases are highly fact-specific and should be assessed individually.
A driver can experience serious consequences before a criminal case is decided. Ontario law permits immediate roadside licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments in various circumstances.
A driver charged with a criminal impaired-driving offence may receive an immediate administrative licence suspension. Separate roadside sanctions may apply to drivers whose alcohol readings fall within Ontario’s warn range of 0.05 to 0.079. Escalating consequences can apply to repeated warn-range occurrences.
Ontario also has zero-tolerance requirements for certain categories of drivers, including young drivers, novice drivers and commercial drivers in specified circumstances.
Administrative sanctions and criminal proceedings are separate. The fact that a criminal charge has not yet been decided does not automatically cancel a roadside suspension. Similarly, dealing with an administrative suspension does not resolve the criminal allegation.
Because review procedures may have strict deadlines, a person facing a suspension should speak with an impaired driving lawyer promptly.
The possible sentence depends on the charge, the facts, the person’s record and whether the incident caused bodily harm or death. Even for a first offence, a conviction can involve a mandatory minimum fine, a driving prohibition and provincial licensing consequences.
Potential consequences may include:
Penalties increase for subsequent offences. Cases involving bodily harm or death expose an accused person to significantly greater jeopardy, including lengthy imprisonment.
The collateral consequences can sometimes be as disruptive as the sentence itself. A driving prohibition may affect a person who travels for work, operates a company vehicle, cares for family members or lives in an area with limited public transportation.
An impaired driving lawyer can obtain and analyze the disclosure provided by the Crown. Disclosure may include officer notes, witness statements, breath-test records, calibration and maintenance documents, body-camera footage, cruiser video, booking-area video, dispatch records and collision evidence.
A defence review may consider:
Not every irregularity results in evidence being excluded or a charge being dismissed. The significance of an issue depends on the governing law and the complete factual record. A lawyer can explain which issues may be legally meaningful and which are unlikely to affect the outcome.
There is no single defence that applies to every case. A defence strategy must be based on the evidence disclosed by the Crown and the circumstances of the investigation.
Police must act within their lawful authority when stopping and detaining a driver. An arbitrary detention may engage Charter protections and lead to an application concerning the admissibility of evidence.
A detained or arrested person has the right to be informed of the right to counsel and, in appropriate circumstances, given a reasonable opportunity to exercise it. Issues may arise when access to counsel is delayed, privacy is inadequate or police fail to respect a request to speak with a particular lawyer.
The defence may examine whether the officer had the authority required for the particular demand, whether the demand was made within the applicable period and whether it was communicated properly.
Breath-test results are governed by detailed statutory rules. Relevant concerns can include instrument operation, test timing, documentation, sample continuity and evidence capable of raising doubt about the reliability of the results.
Some observations associated with impairment may have alternative explanations. Fatigue, anxiety, injury, illness, uneven terrain or communication difficulties can sometimes affect a person’s appearance or performance during an investigation.
In a refusal case, medical evidence or other circumstances may help explain why a person could not provide a sample or complete a test. The excuse must be assessed against the legal requirements and available evidence.
After being released, an accused person will normally receive documents setting out the first court date, release conditions and information concerning the driver’s licence suspension. It is essential to obey all conditions and avoid driving while prohibited or suspended.
The defence can request disclosure from the Crown. Because technical records and video may arrive separately, disclosure is not always complete at the beginning of the case. A lawyer can identify missing materials and make follow-up requests where appropriate.
Once the evidence has been reviewed, the lawyer can advise the accused about potential defences, Charter applications, negotiations, resolution options and trial. The appropriate strategy depends on the strength of the Crown’s evidence, the accused’s objectives and the consequences of the available choices.
A person should not assume that pleading guilty immediately will make the matter disappear. A guilty plea has serious legal consequences and should be considered only after receiving informed advice and understanding the evidence.
DUI is an informal term meaning “driving under the influence.” Canadian legislation generally uses terms such as impaired operation, operating with a prohibited alcohol or drug concentration and refusing or failing to comply with a lawful demand.
Yes. A person can be charged with impaired operation if the evidence allegedly shows that alcohol affected the person’s ability to operate a vehicle, even if the person did not register a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher. Ontario can also impose administrative sanctions for a warn-range result starting at 0.05.
In certain circumstances, an officer with an approved screening device may demand a roadside sample after lawfully stopping a driver without first establishing a specific suspicion that the driver consumed alcohol.
Yes. A valid prescription does not authorize someone to drive while impaired. The important issue is whether the medication affected the person’s ability to operate the vehicle safely.
Refusing a lawful demand without a reasonable excuse is a criminal offence. Concerns about the validity of a demand are generally addressed through the court process rather than by refusing at the roadside.
A charge alone is not a conviction. If the charge results in a conviction, it will generally create a criminal record. Whether a person may eventually qualify for a record suspension is a separate question governed by federal law.
You may receive an immediate administrative suspension after being charged. That suspension operates separately from the criminal prosecution and can take effect before guilt or innocence is determined.
A charge may be withdrawn in some cases, but no lawyer can guarantee that result. Withdrawal may depend on evidentiary problems, legal issues, Crown discretion and the circumstances of the accused.
A criminal record can affect entry into some countries. The rules depend on the destination, the offence, the sentence and the traveller’s history. Anyone concerned about travel should obtain advice specific to the destination.
The timeline varies according to the complexity of the evidence, disclosure delays, court availability, negotiations, Charter applications and whether the case proceeds to trial.
A first charge can still result in significant criminal, licensing, financial and personal consequences. A lawyer can review the evidence, identify possible defences and explain the consequences of each available option.
Impaired driving, Over 80, drug-impaired driving and refusal cases can involve complex scientific evidence, detailed police procedures and serious consequences. The strength of a defence often depends on a careful review of the complete investigation rather than the charge itself.
Baratz Law can assess the circumstances of your arrest, review the evidence, explain your legal options and develop a defence strategy suited to your case.
If you have been charged with impaired driving, Over 80, drug-impaired driving or refusing a lawful demand, contact Baratz Law to schedule a confidential consultation.
See below for various articles related to Impaired Driving, DUI, & Over 80 Charges and that provide answers to questions you may be having about this topic. You can always contact Mr. Baratz, an assault lawyer in Toronto to discuss your matter or schedule a confidential consultation.
Contact us today to schedule your initial consultation and discuss your case with our experienced criminal defense team. You can reach us by phone at 416-937-3777 or through the contact form. We look forward to assisting you with your legal needs.
