Drunk driving consequences don't end on the road forever, receive, impaired, driving, licence

tiffiant

Drunk driving consequences don't end on the road


B.C. drivers who receive a 90-day roadside suspension must drive for a year with a breath-testing device installed in the ignition of their vehicle before they can get their unrestricted licence back.

That means drivers who don’t own vehicles and rely on co-op cars or rentals could remain without an unrestricted licence forever, The Vancouver Sun has learned.

Under the old system, a person convicted of impaired driving was fined and lost their licence for one year.

An offender caught under B.C.’s new administrative program cannot simply wait out the suspension without driving, the solicitor-general’s ministry confirmed. The interlock restriction placed on a licence is not removed until drivers prove by operating a vehicle with the device for a year that their lifestyles have changed and they have given up drinking and driving.

The new administrative 90-day driver’s licence suspension for first-time offenders blowing .08 was brought in last September as an alternative to criminal charges for impaired driving. The aim was to reduce the number of drunk-driving crashes and deaths in B.C.

The device costs $1,730 before taxes.

The device is hardwired in the vehicle and the driver has to blow into a tube to provide a breath sample. The vehicle won’t start if it detects alcohol.

The device also demands ongoing, random breath samples to ensure the driver remains alcohol-free while operating the vehicle.

Activity on the device is recorded and stored in the device’s handset. It also records all attempts to tamper with it.

If someone attempts to disconnect or bypass the device, or a breath test is failed, the device will repeatedly warn the driver to shut down the vehicle. If these warnings are ignored, the vehicle’s horn will sound and its hazard lights will flash until the vehicle is turned off.

An offender who drives a personal vehicle and a company vehicle must install the device in both, which is a challenge for employers who must decide whether to install the device or let the employee go.

But a lawyer who specializes in employment law warns that employers who fire an employee rather than installing the device on a company vehicle could face a human rights tribunal hearing.

“Alcoholism is a disability and employers have a duty to reasonably accommodate an employee’s disability,” explained Martin Sheard.

tiffiant

An alcoholic employee will likely win a discrimination complaint if they were fired after receiving a 90-day driving prohibition and the employer chose to terminate the employee rather than install the ignition interlock device.

Sheard said the changes to impaired driving rules raise a number of new legal issues and each case will be assessed based on a number of factors such as the size of the company, the nature of a person’s work and whether the employee is union or non-union.

“The test always comes down to making a reasonable accommodation,” he said.

“The question of undue hardship would invoke a contextual analysis, taking into account the circumstances of the employment relationship and the relative positions of the employee and employer,” he added.

He said some companies may argue that they had “just cause” for termination because an employee has puts himself in a position where he can’t do his job.

“If you drive for a living and can’t work for three months, that’s likely to be cause,” Sheard said.

Without a provable alcoholism disability, a terminated employee’s recourse would be to sue in court for wrongful dismissal, he said.

The employer might argue the driving ban and interlock device represent “just cause” for termination, but the other issues would be how much driving the employee did in performing his/her job, and whether there are other duties that could be done during the 90-day suspension period, Sheard said.

If the person is a union employee, it would have to be determined whether having a driver’s license is a “bona fide occupational requirement” and an arbitration panel would decide this, instead of a court, he said, and the worker’s dismissal could be overturned if the grievance was successful.

Sheard also pointed out that the Employment Standards Act contains a provision that would prevent an employer from forcing an employee to pay the cost of the interlock device.

The devices, which have been in limited use for repeat offenders since 2005, are now a mandatory measure under B.C.’s tough new drinking and driving rules, which came into effect last September, giving police the ability to impound cars and hand out hefty fines to individuals whose blood-alcohol levels are higher than .05 — lower than the .08 legal limit under the Canadian Criminal Code.

The interlock device now has to be installed on a vehicle for one year if an offender has received three 24-hour suspensions for blowing in the “warn” range from .05 to .08.

tiffiant

Interlock device (pictured