
DUI Offences
Impaired Driving
320.14. Operation while impaired
(1) Everyone commits an offence who
(a) operates a conveyance while the person's ability to operate it is impaired to any degree by alcohol or a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug;
(b) subject to subsection (5), has, within two hours after ceasing to operate a conveyance, a blood alcohol concentration that is equal to or exceeds 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood;
(c) subject to subsection (6), has, within two hours after ceasing to operate a conveyance, a blood drug concentration that is equal to or exceeds the blood drug concentration for the drug that is prescribed by regulation; or
(d) subject to subsection (7), has, within two hours after ceasing to operate a conveyance, a blood alcohol concentration and a blood drug concentration that is equal to or exceeds the blood alcohol concentration and the blood drug concentration for the drug that are prescribed by regulation for instances where alcohol and that drug are combined.
This section creates a series of offences, including aggravated forms, for impaired operation of vehicles, as well as offences involving operation of conveyances with prohibited alcohol, drug or alcohol and drug concentrations.
The external circumstances of the offence of s. 320.14(1)(a) require proof that you operated a conveyance while your ability to do so was impaired to any degree by alcohol, a drug, or a combination of alcohol and a drug. The fault element consists of the intention to operate a vehicle after voluntarily consuming alcohol, a drug or some combination of both.
The offences of ss. 320.14(1)(b)–(d) contain parallel wording. Each prohibits the operation of a conveyance with a prohibited blood alcohol, blood drug or combined concentration. The prohibited concentration for alcohol alone is the familiar 80 mgs. of alcohol in 100 mls. of blood. The blood drug and combined alcohol and drug concentrations are prescribed by regulation. In each case, the external circumstances involve the operation of a conveyance with the prohibited concentration and the mental element, the intention to operate the conveyance having consumed alcohol, drug or a combination of them.
The manner in which the offences are defined, by reference to a prohibited concentration “within two hours of ceasing to operate a conveyance”, provides a link to the exceptions contained in ss. (5)–(7). These exceptions have two common elements: the consumption of the intoxicant must have occurred after ceasing to operate the conveyance, and you must have had no reasonable expectation that they would be required to provide a sample of breath, blood or other bodily substance after ceasing to operate the conveyance. Where alcohol consumption alone is applicable, the concentration determined under ss. 320.31(1) or (2) must be consistent with a level at the time of operation that did not exceed 80 mgs. of alcohol in 100 mls. of blood. Where drugs and alcohol are involved, s. 320.14(7)(c) requires in addition that the blood alcohol concentration not exceed that established by regulation under s. 320.38(a).
Sections 320.14(2) and (3) create aggravated forms of the operation offences of ss. (1). As under s. 320.13 for dangerous operation, the distinguishing feature of the aggravated offences lies in their consequences—the death of or bodily harm to a person other than accused.
Section 320.14(4) creates a further offence linked to the prohibited drug concentration offence of s. 320.14(1)(c). The essential elements of this offence differ in respect of the blood drug concentration, which must be greater than or equal to the concentration provided for by regulation, but less than the concentration provided for the offence of ss. (1)(c)
Under the Code, the word ‘operate’ is defined to include situations involving care and control (i.e. sleeping or just sitting in the car). These impaired driving laws are unique and, as drafted, cause significant uncertainty due to the two-hour time frame.
While the impaired driving offence is generally proven by relying on physical indicia, often combined with a driving pattern, the remaining offences are proven strictly based on bodily samples. As such, much of any impaired driving defence will be focused on the exclusion of bodily samples, either breath, blood, or urine.
Impaired driving and exceeding the legal limit offences are both subject to mandatory minimum punishments.
Refusal to Provide a Breath/Blood/Urine Sample
320.15. Failure or refusal to comply with demand
(1) Everyone commits an offence who, knowing that a demand has been made, fails or refuses to comply, without reasonable excuse, with a demand made under section 320.27 or 320.28.
(2) Accident resulting in bodily harm—Everyone commits an offence who commits an offence under subsection (1) and who, at the time of the failure or refusal, knows that, or is reckless as to whether, they were involved in an accident that resulted in bodily harm to another person.
(3) Accident resulting in death—Everyone commits an offence who commits an offence under subsection (1) and who, at the time of the failure or refusal, knows that, or is reckless as to whether, they were involved in an accident that resulted in the death of another person or in bodily harm to another person whose death ensues.
A large part of impaired driving investigations centres on collecting bodily samples—either breath, blood, or urine. The most common approach involves taking roadside breath samples and evidentiary breath samples at the police station or during checkstop operations.
If a lawful demand for samples is made a driver is legally obligated to provide a breath sample. If a demand for samples is made and the driver either refuses to provide a sample OR is unsuccessful in providing a sample, they will be charged with refusing or failing to comply with a demand. Recently, in the case of R v Emereuwa, 2025 SKCA 83, the accused was stopped by a police officer after a minor collision with a police cruiser. The officer made a mandatory demand under s. 320.27(2) of the Criminal Code for the accused to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device (ASD). Over 23 minutes, the accused was given ten opportunities to provide a breath sample but failed to provide an adequate one. The accused claimed he had a "bitter kola" in his mouth, which impaired his ability to comply with the demand (paras 8-11).
The Court held that the mens rea for failing to comply with a breath demand under s. 320.15(1) requires proof that the accused intended to fail to provide a suitable sample. This interpretation aligns with fundamental criminal law principles, including the presumption of subjective fault, and is supported by textual, contextual, and purposive analyses (paras 27-105).
Refusing or failing to comply with the breath demand offences are also subject to mandatory minimum punishments.