If you practice impaired driving law, you may want to review this decision from Saskatchewan Provincial Court on the constitutional validity of mandatory roadside breath tests as implemented by Bill C-46.

In R. v. Morrison, 2020 SKPC 28, M.M. Baniak, J. delivers a discerning judgment on a variety of issues: notice for delay, a voir dire re Charter challenges blended into the trial itself, analysis of s. 320.27(2) of the Criminal Code including a discussion of Parliament’s legislative intent by analysing the words of the preamble to Bill C-46, and a discussion of the judicial meaning of “immediately”.

[172]      Obviously, s. 320.27(2) also has a deleterious effect.  Every person in a free and democratic society should, to the greatest extent possible, be free from a warrantless search or seizure especially when no grounds or reasonable suspicion exist.  This becomes even more concerning when that search or seizure incriminates the person.

[173]      However, the new provision, even though it eliminates the reasonable suspicion requirement, is grounded to an extent on the premise that it is a supplemental investigative tool that is not determinative of a person’s guilt and is subject to judicial review.  The search is restricted to provision of breath samples.  It does not extend to a person’s belongings or his living space.

Even if it’s not applicable in Manitoba, I think it’s a good example of all the elements that can be considered in a decision.

Additional Commentary:

Saskatchewan court rules mandatory roadside breath testing constitutional / Kyla Lee (The Lawyers Daily, August 24, 2020)

The library will be closed on Monday, May 20th for Victoria Day