In paragraph [29] of his reasons in R. v. Singh, Hill J. cites a passage from the reasons of Cory J. in Regina v. Bernshaw (1995), 1995 CanLII 150 (SCC), 95 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.) for the proposition that the demand must be made immediately upon forming a reasonable suspicion of alcohol in the body. He says that although Cory J. was in the minority this issue was only addressed by the minority. That is not correct. Indeed, the majority reasons written by Sopinka J. address the issue generally in the context of the meaning of “forthwith” in section 254(2) (at paragraphs [61] – [65]) and address it specifically in the context of a demand, as opposed to the administration of the test, at paragraphs [65] – [73]. The reasons of the majority do not accept Cory J.’s position.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.