Criminal Defence

Refusal Charge Lawyers in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia

A desk in the firm's Moncton office with barrister's robes hanging behind it

A refusal charge under section 320.15 of the Criminal Code is laid when a driver fails or refuses to comply with a lawful demand for a breath sample, a blood sample or a drug evaluation. It is its own offence, separate from impaired driving, and its minimum fine is double the impaired minimum. The firm defends these files in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and a refusal charge lawyer starts each one at the video of the demand.

Section 320.15 Covers Every Kind of Demand

An officer can demand a roadside sample into a screening device, and mandatory alcohol screening means that demand needs no suspicion at a lawful stop. An officer with reasonable grounds can demand evidentiary breath samples on an approved instrument, a drug recognition evaluation or blood. Section 320.15 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to fail or refuse to comply with any of these demands without a reasonable excuse. Sobriety is not a defence. A sober driver who refuses commits the offence.

A First Conviction Carries a $2,000 Minimum Fine

The charge is hybrid. A first conviction carries a minimum fine of $2,000, double the $1,000 minimum for a first impaired conviction, and a driving prohibition of at least one year.¹ A second conviction carries a minimum of thirty days in jail. The maximum is two years less a day on summary conviction and ten years on indictment.² Under section 320.26, an earlier impaired or 80 mg or over conviction raises the minimum on a refusal charge, and a refusal conviction does the same on any later impaired charge. The record, the insurance consequences and the border problems match an impaired conviction.

The Crown Must Prove a Lawful Demand and a Real Refusal

The Crown must prove that the demand was one the officer was entitled to make, that it was communicated so the driver understood what was required, that the driver failed or refused, and that the failure was deliberate. A driver who tries and cannot produce a sample has not necessarily refused. A driver who asks questions has not necessarily refused. The roadside and booking-room video usually shows what the exchange actually was.

The Defences a Refusal Charge Lawyer Runs

Reasonable excuse is the statutory defence, and a medical inability to blow, established with records, is the clearest example. The demand itself can also be challenged: a screening demand made without a device at hand, an evidentiary demand made without grounds, or a demand read so poorly the driver could not know what was being asked. A driver who refuses and then offers to comply within moments raises a further issue. Each of these is checked against the video before any plea advice is given.

The Licence Consequences Are Provincial

Both provinces treat a roadside refusal without reasonable excuse as a ground for the same suspension as a failed test. The officer may suspend immediately under each province’s Motor Vehicle Act, and interlock eligibility after a conviction follows each province’s own rules. The details differ by province.

The Firm Defends Refusal Charges in Both Provinces

The firm orders disclosure, the device data and the full video before advising anything. Impaired and 80 mg or over charges are their own practice at impaired driving (DUI) defence, and the full charge list is at criminal defence. To have a file reviewed before the first appearance, use the contact page.

The Firm Defends Refusal Charges in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia

Does Refusing Keep the Breath Readings Out of Court?

There are no readings, which removes the instrument defences that decide many 80 mg or over trials. The lawfulness of the demand and the excuse remain the live issues. Refusing does not improve a driver’s position: the minimum fine is higher and the licence consequences are the same.

I Refused Because I Panicked.

Panic on its own is not a reasonable excuse. A confused exchange can still matter, because the Crown must prove the demand was clear and the refusal was meant. That is a video question, and it gets checked in every file.