New Roadside Alcohol Suspensions: Bill 203 Explained
On May 1, 2009, amendments to the Highway Traffic Act (Sections 41-48) came into effect, as did three new Ontario Regulations (403/08, 405/08, and 407/08), as part of Bill 203, the Safer Roads for Safer Ontario Act.
Although we have just passed the one year anniversary of the legislation coming into force, there still seems to be a great deal of confusion about it.
The purpose of this article is to dispel any remaining confusion over this legislation.The purpose of this aspect of Bill 203 was to increase the penalty for drivers who blew in the “warn range” for blood alcohol concentration (B.A.C.), from what was then a 12 hour licence suspension to an escalating 3, 7, or 30 day suspension, with additional consequences.
These amendments did not change the B.A.C. level which qualifies as a “warn”, as some people have come to believe. This seems to be the most prominent misconception about Bill 203. The “warn” limit was, and is still, .05 to .08 B.A.C., or 50 to 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood. Under .05 B.A.C. is legal, unless you have a graduated Class G or Class M licence (G1, G2, M1, M2). Over .08 B.A.C. is, of course, illegal and qualifies you to be arrested and charged with Over 80 under Section 253 of the Criminal Code.
I encountered this mistaken impression about the “warn” level a great deal when I was on patrol after Bill 203 was enacted. I believe that the confusion stemmed from the wording used to advertise the new penalties. In print and on television, advertisements warned of “New roadside suspension for people who blow a .05.” Many people took this to mean that the limit had been lowered and people would now have their licence suspended for blowing a .05, however, that was always the case and the only thing that was new was the length of the suspension.
Prior to Bill 203, when police administered a roadside screening device to a driver who blew a “warn”, that driver got their licence seized by the police for 12 hours, after which time they could attend the police station and get it back. These suspensions were not recorded on a person’s driving record and there were no additional penalties or consequences. If a person drove during this 12 hour window they were technically driving on a suspended licence. However, it is not likely that anyone would know, except the officer who seized their licence, since the suspension was not recorded to CPIC (the Canadian Police Information Center), which any police officer can and would check during a traffic stop.
Now, under the new amendments, a driver blowing a “warn” will automatically have their licence suspended for 3 days and there are escalating penalties for repeat offenders. If a driver blows a “warn” again within 5 years, their licence will automatically be suspended for 7 days. If a driver blows a “warn” a third time, within 5 years of the second time, their licence will be automatically suspended for 30 days.
Since these suspensions are more than 12 hours long, they are entered onto CPIC for their duration, which allows any officer encountering the person in that time frame to know that their licence is under suspension. These suspensions are issued on the authority of the police officer, at the roadside and the authority extends to international driving permits and licences of other jurisdictions, as well as Ontario licences. This new legislation notwithstanding, police can still suspend the licence of a novice driver who has a blood alcohol level under .05 using the old 12 hour procedure.
If caught driving during this time on a suspended licence, a person can be subject to a fine of up to $5,000 and 6 months in jail. In my experience, Justices of the Peace do not take kindly to people driving when they have been told not to and jail time is not uncommon for this offence, even though it is only quasi-criminal.
The additional consequences for blowing a “warn” are as follows. Upon the second suspension, the driver will be required to complete a remedial alcohol program with the Ministry of Transportation and their licence will automatically be suspended indefinitely if they fail to complete the program. Upon the third conviction, the driver will be subjected to the remedial program again as well as to an ignition interlock condition on their license for a minimum of 6 months after their license is reinstated. This means that they are required to have an ignition interlock device installed in their vehicle and they are prohibited from driving any vehicle not equipped with one. Fines for violating ignition interlock conditions can be up to $1,000.
Another new consequence for blowing a “warn” is that, once the suspension is lifted, the person is required to pay a $150 reinstatement fee to the MTO to get their licence reactivated. This was not the case with the 12 hour suspensions, since the licence was not officially suspended with the MTO, it was just held by police for 12 hours.
One interesting feature of Bill 203 is the addition of Section 48 (9) to the Highway Traffic Act, which explicitly states that, “There is no appeal from, or right to be heard before, the suspension of a driver’s licence under this section.” This section has been greatly contested by some, who feel that it violates the rights guaranteed under Section 11 (d) of the Charter, “to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.” Since there is no trial process for licence suspensions, and no right to appeal, the police officer is, in effect, judge, jury, and executioner, convicting and carrying out the sentence themselves.
I believe that the only reason this particular feature was permitted to be passed is because, unlike an actual charge, a licence suspension carries no direct punishment. Although there is a great deal of inconvenience associated with it, there is no fine or other consequence for receiving a roadside suspension.
There is no indirect punishment for it either, since, according to a Financial Services Commission of Ontario bulletin, insurance companies cannot use an Administrative Driver’s Licence Suspension (ADLS), which is less than one year in length, in their risk classification system, which is what primarily determines your premiums. An ADLS is any suspension not associated with a conviction in court for a driving related offence, thus all of these suspensions qualify.
Perhaps to balance out this somewhat restrictive feature, Bill 203 also included the addition of Section 48 (6) of the Highway Traffic Act, which states that a driver now has the right to demand an officer provide them with a second opportunity to provide a breath sample, with a different roadside screening device or a breathalyser machine at the police station, to verify the accuracy of the first reading. The inclusion of the breathalyser machine at the station is important for anyone who wants absolute verification that the police are being honest with them, since the breathalyser machine prints out a record of the breath sample showing the B.A.C.
This section does come with one caveat, however: the second reading stands. If the second reading is under .05, the driver does not receive a licence suspension. If the second reading is also a “warn” they do. But, if the second reading is a fail, the person is arrested for Over 80. It is good to know your rights if you are in this situation, but be wary if you are going to demand a second sample! Unlike breathalyser samples for people arrested for Impaired Driving or Over 80, there is no specified minimum or maximum time between samples, however the driver must make themselves readily available for a second sample. They cannot delay while they wait for the B.A.C. to drop.
The rationale behind this legislation is to denounce driving with a blood alcohol level which could affect a driver’s ability to operate their motor vehicle safely, putting themselves and the public at risk. It is up to you to decide whether you think it accomplishes this goal and whether there may be a better way of doing it. I invite you to post your thoughts in the comments section and, as always, please feel free to share the link to this article on your forums and other social media outlets.
About the author: Simon Borys is a former police officer who is currently studying law at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario to become a criminal lawyer.
Posted in Laws Explained, Police Myths
40 Responses to “New Roadside Alcohol Suspensions: Bill 203 Explained”
Leave a Reply
Simon Borys
Simon Borys is a former police officer, a law student at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, and an aspiring criminal defence lawyer.
DISCLAIMER:
Please remember that I am not a police officer anymore. None of the information on this site should be considered "police advice". The contents of this blog and site are not approved by any police service.
Please remember that I am not a lawyer either. None of the information on this site should be considered "legal advice". Neither the use of this site or any communications with me shall result in the creation of a lawyer-client relationship or fiduciary duty.
TERMS OF USE:
By reading this and remaining on this site you acknowledge that everything on this site is merely an expression of my opinions and experiences and no more. Nothing written here related to the law should be considered definitive, exhaustive, or necessarily accurate.
This site attempts to provide general information only, however the interpretation and application of the law is always properly determined on a case by case basis. Therefore you should not rely exclusively on the general information on this site if you are potentially facing legal consequences; you should consult a licenced lawyer or paralegal.
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION:
Please do not include any information you want kept confidential in comments you post on this site. All comments are visible to the public. I reserve the right to edit or reject any comments as I feel necessary.
Please do not send me any confidential information via email, Twitter, LinkedIn, or Facebook either. I cannot guarantee the security of any of these modes of communication.
$150 for a licence reinstatement sure sounds like a punishment to me!
Thank you for a detailed and easy to follow clarification. Just one question. When you say that “a license suspension carries no direct punishment”, does it mean there are no fines and/or points associated and no driving record “blemishes”? We all know that indirect punishments for victimless crimes are much more severe than what’s directly prescribed by law (read: insurance companies are going to rape people for years just for having one beer on an empty stomach). Dos the roadside suspension count as a conviction per se? Do people have to disclose them to their insurance companies or anyone else? Thanks again for an interesting read.
There is no fine associated with a roadside alcohol suspension, by way of a ticket or anything like that. It does go on your driving record though, as an administrative suspension. According to the FSCO bulletin I mentioned, insurance companies are not allowed to use these administrative suspensions in their risk classification system of clients. I think you would still have to answer yes if they ask if your licence has been suspended, and then just explain that it was an administrative suspension.We all know that insurance companies can and do raise peoples rates on a whim. I’m sure if they wanted to, they could find a way to hammer you for getting a roadside alcohol suspension. I guess this is the difference between the way things are supposed to be and the way things really are.
What I don’t understand is why did they clearly not lower the 0.08 threshold for criminal code suspensions?? They rather introduced road side suspensions for lower so called warn limit.Is it me or is this clearly complicates the rather easy situation? If you really want people to drink and drive less why not to work with the variable you already have in the system? This whole 203 seems like an art created by an artist who had zero talent in the first place
Are you suggesting they should have lowered the legal limit in the criminal code from .08 to .05 and be done with warns of any kind?The suspensions for the warn range in Ontario are not new, so this legislation hasn’t really added any confusion. They’ve just upped the penalties for people who are in that 50-80 mg range.
I don’t see why not.When I did my G test in 2009 I was told that I can drive with up to .08 legally in Ontario (not a word about warning above 0.05; I just checked the test book I used ….). Until they sneaked the 0.05 warning business in. Why? If they believe it is bad to drive above 0.05, outlaw it without any warning zone. It’s clear cut, nobody is confused. Anything above 0.05 puts you in big trouble.BTW, there’s no warning about speeding over 50+, so why warning for drinking and driving? not making much sense to me, but I guess it’s not supposed to.Just for the record, I’d be fine if there was be zero tolerance for drinking and driving.P.S. If it was not confusing, I doubt you’d be writing a blog article about it …
True enough, I like to write on complicated issues and simplify them.I’m really surprised that you were never told about .05 to .08 being the “warn” range. That’s always been the case, it just used to be a 12 hr suspension, instead of the escalating 3/7/30 day, but it was never ok.Many people are suggesting that the limit should just be lowered to .05, but the argument could then become, what about .00 to .05. The bottom line it, there will always need to be an arbitrary point where they say, “Anything above this is illegal.” Because of this, there will always be a grey area just below this number. In Ontario, they’ve decided to address this grey area by way of Bill 203. Other provinces do it in different ways. The point of acknowledging the grey area, I think, is to let people know, “We don’t tolerate people driving over the legal limit and you’re pretty close. You’re so close, in fact, that we think your ability to operate a vehicle might still be a little questionable, since we acknowledge that .08 is an arbitrary number, so here’s a rap on the knuckles, don’t do it again.”I can certainly see the rationale for this kind of thought process.
To clarify the issue of the second sample, a person can demand a second sample, but, according to Section 48 (6.1) it is up to the officer to determine if the sample will be provided on a breathalyser or a different roadside screening device.
I dont know if im going out of this subject but I have a question about this. In 2006 i drove drunk and arrived at a Ride prog and was given a tool to blow in and it said FAIL and off we went to the station where i waited for 1hr before blowing in the bigger device. The arresting Officer came around and asked if i needed a lawyer and i declined. We then proceeded to the big device room and I blew over STILL. At this point i knew i was in deep trouble. But a few minutes later, I was walked out with a 90 day suspension and a ADLS showing on my licence.. Up to this day, Im still confused that it shows up on my lincence and i was never charged. Is this normal? How do i get rid of the adls that shows on my licence?
That is indeed a very confusing scenario. An ADLS can only be issued when a person is charged with Over 80 or Fail to Provide Breath Sample. It can’t even be laid when a person is charged with Impaired Driving only, much less if there was no charge laid. There is a process to appeal an ADLS, however it is only intended for cases of mistaken identity or when the person couldn’t provide a sample due to medical reasons. I don’t know if they would hear an issue like yours. Here is a link to the Notice of Appeal form. The contact information for the Licence Appeal Tribunal is at the bottom. You could inquire about it further with them yourself or hire a lawyer to look into the matter for you.Without knowing more details about your case I couldn’t guess as to what happened exactly.
Newfoundland recently announced that they will be updating their Highway Traffic Act to increase penalties for people blowing between .05 and .08 into a breathalyzer. Previously, drivers were subject to a licence suspension of 24 hours, but the proposed changes will up that to 7 days. The period of suspension can escalate to a maximum of 6 months for repeat offenders.Full story here:http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/06/15/nl-drinking-penalties-615.html
just recieved a 90 day suspension,for blowing over 80,officer did not sign the form that took home with me,do you thijnk i could get it revokr=ed fot that mistake?
No, I don’t think so. You’d have to appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for relief and section 50.1(2) of the HTA sets out the only 2 reasons for which appeal can be made:Grounds for appeal(2) The only grounds on which a person may appeal a suspension under section 48.3 and the only grounds on which the Tribunal may order that the suspension be set aside are,(a) that the person whose licence was suspended is not the same individual to whom a demand was made, or from whom a sample was taken, or who performed physical co-ordination tests or submitted to an evaluation, as the case may be, under section 254 or 256 of the Criminal Code (Canada); or(b) that the person failed or refused to comply with a demand made under section 254 of the Criminal Code (Canada) because he or she was unable to do so for a medical reason. 2009, c. 5, s. 21.In addition, there is nothing specified in the HTA about whether an officer must sign a certificate and that it must be complete and regular on its face, like there is with a regular Provincial Offence Notice.
Hi, thank you for the great articleLast Night i received a roadside suspension but I know that there is no way my blood alcohol level was over ,05 ( and by the on my drivers test I was told that alcohol limit is ,08 and that is what i assumed is the law).There was a ride stop and becasue i was coming back from this wedding at like 3;00am, ( and i know i smelled of cigaretts and alcohol everyone was consuming in the room) the officers were really suspicious . Once I did the test they didn’t explain what the letters mean. I really believe the officers were having a power trip cause i drive a nice car and am young and all that.anyways they gave me 3 day suspension and I am so angry and want to contest it ( i really think they lied about what BAC letter I got). What can I do, I don’t want it on my record and I want to contest it? is there any recourse??thank you
Hi Lalia, sorry to hear about your situation, but there is no recourse for you to appeal a suspension.Section 47 (17) of the Highway Traffic Act specifically says: “There is no appeal from, or right to be heard before, the suspension of a driver’s licence under this section.”If you feel that you blew a pass but the officers lied and said you blew an ‘A’ (alert: 50-80 mgs) then you could complain to their supervisor about it. If you did in fact blow an ‘A’ and you believe that the device did not measure your BAC level correctly you could request a record of the officers notes and a copy of the calibration records for the device (all roadside devices are calibrated weekly). If the officer did use a properly calibrated device then you will probably just have to accept that your BAC was higher than you thought it was.Incidentally, your driver training was correct, the legal limit prescribed by the criminal code is 80 mgs. The Province of Ontario has enacted legislation in the Highway Traffic Act that provides for some additional actions to be taken (suspensions) against people who are in the “warn range” which is 50 – 80 mgs of alcohol, but the legal limit is still 80.
Hi,Last Monday I was stopped by police at 10pm and charged for 7 day suspention.I requested the police officer to take second breath sample as I had some beer just around 10 to 15 minutes before he stopped me. But the officer never took the second test or took me to the police station which I requested him, infact he issued me 7 day suspention notice and took my license. My wife drove me home as she was with me.So today after 7 days I went to MTO to get my liense back, but surprisingly they told me that my license is suspended for 30 days in their files because I have had two suspentions of 3 and 7 days within 5 years. I agree that I had two 3 and 5 days suspentions, but I have concerns in my case….I firstly state that the police officer issued 7 day suspention marked on the notice, this was his negligency, misleading information to me, infact it should be 30 days.Secondly he never gave me the second breath sample test and suspended my license.CAN I APPEAL SOME HOW???? WHAT SHOULD I DO??? PLEASE HELP AND COMMENT.Thanks in advance.
Obviously I can’t give you legal advice, but I can say that the HTA seems quite clear on the fact that you are entitled to a second sample if you request it. I’m not sure about the confusion with the length of the suspension, but it certainly seems to be something you could bring up with the ADLS tribunal.Here is the appeal form. http://www.lat.gov.on.ca/english/appeals/pdf/ADLSfrmE20093.pdf Although you don’t technically fit into either category for appeal, you could contact them and request some direction. Also, you could raise the issue with the officer’s supervisor if you feel that they have violated some provision of the HTA in their dealings with you.
Thanks Simon,I have addressed my concerns to the officers supervisor and he is looking into the issue I have raised. If you wish than I can email the letter I have sent to the supervisor.Your response and comments were very heipful.Regards,Narinder
Sorry Narinder, I think that would be too close to providing legal advice on your specific situation, which I am prohibited from doing as a law student. I just try to disseminate general information here. Best of luck though.
my question is i had a 3 adls last dec i drove 5 mins away from this house i was at due to the fact i got punched in the nose by this guy blood all over my face i was in shock so just needed to get away from him officer asked me if i wanted to press charges i said no so i sat in my car in driver seat car was running for me to keep warm no intentions of driving was going to just sit there all night cause i new i had had beers so police came and the result was 3 day adls i recently got my az and one company said no to me because of this it is on my driver abstart what can i do anything?
I won’t comment on the circumstances surrounding your roadside suspension, since they seem to be something you should speak to a lawyer about, but I will point you to Section 47 (17) of the Highway Traffic Act, which specifically says: “There is no appeal from, or right to be heard before, the suspension of a driver’s licence under this section.” My interpretation of this is that the circumstances surrounding how and why you received an suspension are wholly irrelevant for the purposes of what you can do about it now (at least in terms of whether you can get it removed from your driving record).
I see that some guy this week became the very first driver to have his licence suspended by Toronto police for 30 days, after blowing in the “warn” range. This has obviously happened to him before in order to reach the 30-day mark. Yet he can’t be called a “repeat offender” because what he’s done is not an offence — neither a Provincial Offence nor a Criminal Code one. He’s broken no law. Still, losing your licence for a month is definitely a punishment or penalty worthy of a law-breaking offender, but at least an accused offender has his day in court. Think about it, you have the right to trial even if you’ve been ticketed for going only 1 km/h over the speed limit, when the penalty wouldn’t come near to a licence suspension in that case.I also wonder about the police officers put in the position of punishing “warn range” drivers, knowing those drivers haven’t broken any law. If such a driver can’t protest their innocence in court, should he or she appeal directly to the roadside “judge” — the officer — applying their punishment? If a police officer has the discretion to not ticket somebody for the Provincial Offense of speeding (or to reduce the ticket) surely the officer has the discretion to not take away somebody’s licence after they’ve committed no offence whatsoever! Mr. Borys, would you know if officers are compelled by law to suspend the licences of warn-range drivers, or if they still possess the discretion to issue a “real” warning? The rank and file might like the public to think they have no choice in the matter … but I wonder.It was one thing when officers could only revoke a licence for 12 hours on the spot, but the longer and more onerous these warn-range penalties become, the more time it creates for somebody to try and get in front of an actual judge to argue unjust punishment under the Charter, Common Law tradition, etc. Thirty days is getting into that window of opportunity.Setting aside the issue of nationally lowering the Criminal Code limit, why didn’t Queen’s Park have the cajones to at least make it a proper Provincial Offense to have a BAC in the .05 to .079 range? Maybe it’s because roadside breathalyzer technology is not refined enough to determine when somebody falls within that category? I’ve read that these devices are only calibrated to register a “fail” at a full 0.1 — used in many American jurisdictions — and that everything between .05 and .099 simply produces the “warn” signal. A more precise BAC determination can only be made back at the police station, but that only happens once the driver has failed the roadside test because their BAC was really at least 0.1. I’ve also heard that, in case law, the effective criminal limit for impaired driving is now 0.1 in Ontario, possibly in connection with the breathalyzer issue. Have you heard this as well, Mr. Borys?
Roadside devices do register a fail only if over 100 mgs. This is to give the accused the benefit of any doubt, but also because if it were set to fail at 80 mgs (the actual limit) and someone failed at 81, they’d very likely be under when they got to the station…now they’ve been arrested and had their car towed and have to be released unconditionally. Easier to set it to 100 because they’ll still likely be over by the time they provide 2 samples into the breathalyser. The legal limit is 80 and you can be charged for providing 2 samples of 81, but as a practice, most police services have a policy of not charging with Over 80 unless both readings are above 100. This is to save the crown attorney having to defend in court against arguments about the possible margin of error in the machine or in its application.As to whether officers
have
to issue suspension at the roadside for a person who blows a warn, s. 48(2) indicates that it is discretionary.(2) Where, upon demand of a police officer made under section 254 of the Criminal Code (Canada), the driver of a motor vehicle or the operator of a vessel provides a sample of breath which, on analysis by an approved screening device as defined in that section, registers “Warn” or “Alert” or otherwise indicates that the concentration of alcohol in the person’s blood is 50 milligrams or more of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, the police officer may request that the person surrender his or her driver’s licence.
Thank you for your informational reply.I suspect some police services in this province have an internal policy mandating that their officers must take the licence of any driver registering in the warn range. One has flat out told me that they have no choice. Or maybe that’s just what they want the public to know … because they’d rather not argue by the roadside. But, hey, if they’re going to be judge and jury, issuing punishment to citizens, I guess they ARE the ones who should hear those verbal appeals, bothersome as they might think them to be.
im just wondering how long does the 3 day suspensions stay on the driving abstract?
Like the convictions on your record, for life, I think.
Great article Simon.Since writing this article last summer, is the link you have to the Financial Services Commission of Ontario site regarding the bulletin on ADLS the most current and still in effect? I ask because the bulletin dates back to 2006 and I want to ensure it’s the most current and still in effect.Also, If I want to ensure my premiums don’t go up with the help of FSCO’s bulletin, would it be best that I initiate contact with my insurance company ASAP and discuss with them up front?Thank you
Sorry Chris, I don’t know if the bulletin is still current or what would be your best option for dealing with your insurance company.
Simon,I have a question about suspensions. A friend of mine (honestly a friend and not me) got stopped tonight and blew a warning. The officer explained to me that he had blown a 7 day and that they were going to take him back to the station for a second test. He said that it was possible he could blow a three day at the station. I was wondering what this was all about since this is his first offence. Shouldn’t he have just been a three day if he was in the warn range?
Mike, on the facts as you’ve described them that doesn’t sound right. As you said, if he’d blown a warn, with no priors, he should have just got the 3 day. If he requested a 2nd sample to verify the reading, it would have been the officer’s choice to provide him with a second roadside screening device to use or a chance to blow into the intoxilyzer back at the station. If he blew a warn the second time it should still only have been a 3 day suspension. All I can suggest is that perhaps he misunderstood what the officer meant, or the officer was mistaken.
Im confused if you recieve a three day suspension Does it go on your criminal record? Can you still travel across the border?
It’s not part of your criminal record, it’s part of your traffic conviction record, which is attached to your drivers licence. I should also not that it is on CPIC (which they have access to at the border) for the time that the suspension is in force. Whether or not it would prevent your from crossing the border, either during or after the time you are suspended, I do not know.
Another great topic. Here is the curve ball…. Is the sample of screening device admissible in court as prove of the alcohol concentration on the accused breath?Imagine this:Ride stop, police observe driver who smells of alcohol but does not appear impaired. Officer demands a sample into the screening device to obtain reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the driver for over 80 mg. Driver provides sample and registers “warn”. Officer then learned that driver is under 21 and a G2 holder. Surely HTA charges are laid and licence suspended administratively. Is sample admissible in court? I say NO.
Simon,I have a question about circumstances surrounding a 3 day suspension of my D/L last night.My friend and I went out for the evening and because I was the designated driver, I had some wine at home, she drove to our destination and five hours later (without any further alcohol for me) I was pulled over and given a suspension for an intoxilyzer result that came up with ‘A’.I was clearly shocked, based on the fact that I had not had a lot to drink before we went out…maybe half a bottle of wine.Everything I’m finding on ‘results’ gives a number of 0.05 etc. as a warning. What does an ‘A’ on the device mean and why, when I asked the officer for a second test (because I was in disbelief) would he not allow me a second test. I am a smoker and don’t know if this would have any impact…would it?Mostly, confused about the ‘A’ reading and no numbers.Thanks.
An ‘A’ on a roadside screening device means you were between .05 and .08. If you were under it would have give you a pass and if you were over, an ‘F’. The roadside device doesn’t give numbers for the ‘A’ range. Per the HTA you are allowed to provide a second sample. That being said, the HTA explicitly says that there is no way to appeal one of these suspensions, so your recourse seems limited. At most perhaps you could complain about the officer no allowing you to provide a second sample.
I love this post, thank you so much!
Hey Simon,
I need your advice about it. I got 3 days suspension on Canada day, (2009). I would like to like to know how long it stays on the record? I in jan (2012) I went to get my driving abstract from MTO, they said its stays there for 3 years and should go away in july,(2012). I am so confused, I quit drinking after that, and wanted to apply for the jobs where my driving record is needed. Would you able to advice me like if it goes away from your record after 3 years or What can I do in terms to clear it from the record?
As I said in my post on Driving Convictions, convictions are always on your record. This should also apply to suspensions. The 3 years comes from the fact that most police services don’t see anything beyond that and most insurance companies don’t ask about anything beyond that either, but it’s still there. I don’t know whether you can apply to have it removed or not.
Here for a little advise and sorry if this sounds silly ( English is not my first language) I got stopped in a ride program earlier this month. The officer asked me if i had anything to drink. I was honest and said 2 beers before 8:30 pm (its now 12:30 am by now). The officer takes me to his cruiser for a breathalizer and I comply. I did not really understand what he said about the result (English is not my first language) basically, he let me out of the back seat of his cruiser and handed me my licence back… And walked away to get back in line with his colleagues. My question is: I guess its safe to assume I was below .05 since he gave me back my licence and let me get back to my car without giving me any paperwork/fine?
Thanks for visiting my blog. I can’t comment on your situation specifically, because obviously I don’t know for certain what happened or what was said. However, if you were not served with any paperwork and were allowed to drive away, it seems likely that your licence was not suspended (meaning you were not over .05 BAC). If you want to know for certain you could get a printout of your driver’s licence history from the MTO.