Understanding the Criminal Offence of Failing to Comply with a Demand for Samples.

Failure to Comply with Demand

Criminal Code Provision: Section 320.15(1)

320.15 (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.

Understanding Refusal

This offence occurs when a driver fails to comply with a lawful demand from police during an impaired driving investigation.

Types of Refusal include

• Declining to blow into a roadside breathalyzer (ASD).
• Not providing two adequate samples on a breathalyzer at the station.
• Declining or not supplying blood or urine samples when legally requested.
• Pretending to blow or lacking adequate effort (referred to as a “failure”).

Refusing to comply is treated the same as an impaired or over-80 conviction. The law is designed to prevent people from avoiding charges by not giving samples.

What Counts as a Reasonable Excuse?

The law permits a refusal solely in the presence of a valid justification:

• Authentic medical incapacity (e.g., intense asthma hindering blowing).
• Equipment malfunction or improper use by police.

Simply being nervous, not waiting to self-incriminate, or refusing out of principle is not a valid excuse.

Possible Defences for a Refusal

• Improper Demand – police must follow strict legal requirements when demanding a sample.
• Charter Violations – Rights to counsel denied, unlawful stop, or unreasonable delay may exclude evidence.
• Medical Incapacity – If the accused truly could not provide a sample.

Penalties for Refusal

Refusal carries the same mandatory minimum penalties as impaired driving and over 80 offences.

1. First Offence – Mandatory Minimum – $1000 fine
2. Second Offence – Mandatory Minimum – 30 days imprisonment
3. Third Offence – Mandatory Minimum – 120 Days Imprisonment

Leading Case Law of Refusal

In the case of R. v. Woods, [2005] ONCA 449, the courts established that you don’t have to say “no” to be considered as refusing; not supplying an adequate sample is viewed the same way. The court concluded that “refusal” includes both explicit refusal and non-cooperative behavior.