Impaired driving — refusal

The client was pulled over for a driving observation and asked to provide a roadside sample. What happened next — the officer's account of a refusal, and the client's account of what was actually asked and understood — did not line up.

Refusal charges are their own animal. The offence has the same maximum penalty as impaired operation, but the trial issues are often narrower and turn heavily on the exact wording of the demand.

Whether the demand was lawful — that is, whether the officer had reasonable suspicion under s. 320.27 (for the roadside screening demand) or reasonable grounds under s. 320.28 (for an evidentiary demand).

Whether the alleged refusal amounted to a failure or refusal to comply with the demand, given what the client actually understood.

Trial preparation focused on the officer as the Crown's primary — often only — witness on the demand and the alleged refusal.

Cross-examination developed line by line: the wording of the demand, the officer's stated grounds, any explanation the client gave, and the timing of every step.

In-car video and dispatch audio reviewed for consistency with the officer's notes.

• The exact language of the demand — statutory precision matters.
• Whether the client had a reasonable excuse for the alleged refusal (medical, misunderstanding, language).
• The officer's real-time grounds analysis at the point of the demand, not reconstructed afterward.
• s. 10(b) implications for any demand made in a context where counsel access should have been implemented first.

A refusal charge is not simply an impaired charge without a reading. The trial issues are different and often narrower — but that narrowness is exactly what makes trial preparation critical.

Every refusal file at Saggi Law Firm is assessed on the specific facts of the stop and the demand.