Canada DUI Laws: Guilty For Drunk Driving In a Motorized Wheelchair

Did you know that in Canada, our DUI laws can result in being arrested and found guilty for operating a motorized wheelchair while drunk?

Yes, and the reason is section 2 of Criminal Code defines a "motor vehicle" to mean any vehicle that is drawn, propelled or driven by any means other than muscular power.

An Ontario court found that a motorized wheelchair is a motor vehicle. No other case has addressed this issue.

Basis for this aspect of our DUI laws

The case is R. v. Shanahan in the Ontario Court of Justice, 2007. In that case, a man who was injured and had difficulty walking, borrowed his mother's motorized wheelchair for a night of drinking. Police testified they saw him weaving while crossing the road in the wheelchair and therefore arrested him. An important point is the accused was not 100 percent disabled; he could walk 100 to 150 meters. Therefore, he was not entirely confined to a wheelchair.

At trial, J.D. Wake J. (the judge) held the wheelchair was a motor vehicle as defined by the Criminal Code. The trial judge then gave the accused an opportunity to apply for relief under section 15 (equality rights) of the Charter.

The accused returned to court and made the argument that the finding of a conviction infringed the accused's rights. Three approaches were addressed:

1. The definition of motor vehicle is too vague or overly broad.
2. If motorized wheelchairs are a motor vehicle, people reliant on motorized wheelchairs are not treated equally at law. This is arguing a breach of equality protected under section 15 of the Charter.
3. Does the result offend the accused's dignity under section 15 of the Charter?

1. Is the definition for motor vehicle too broad or too vague?

It was held, that no, it's neither too broad nor too vague. All motorized vehicles, wheelchairs included, can cause injury. Therefore, the definition including motorized wheelchairs is not too broad.

It is not too vague in that it's clear what is and what is not a motor vehicle. A motorized wheelchair "fits squarely within the definition of a motor vehicle in The Criminal Code."

2. Does the conclusion breach secton 15 of the Charter (breach equality rights)?

J.D. Wake J. held that the Canada DUI laws (section 253 of the Criminal Code) does not make a distinction between people reliant on motorized wheelchairs and people who don't need motorized wheelchairs.

Next, the comparison group used by the accused was able-bodied persons who consumed too much alcohol. This comparison for equality breach did not persuade the Court because the accused was mobile without a motorized wheelchair.

Also, people walking and impaired in public places can be charged with other criminal offences other than a DUI laws such as mischief.

3. Does the result offend the accused's dignity under section 15 of the Charter?

J.D. Wake J. then brought up a dignity aspect of equality rights, and that "it must be remembered that the essence of s.15's purpose is the protection of a person's dignity." See R. v. Banks (2007), 216 C.C.C. (3d) 19 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 100.

The dignity issue was addressed as follows:

"The argument in favour of striking down s.253 seems to be that the dignity of a disabled person can only be sustained if he is afforded the right to behave with a lack of dignity. In my view s.15 of the Charter should not be used to support the result of such inverted reasoning."

HELD: Canada DUI laws does result an impaired driving conviction for operating a motorized wheelchaire while impaired.

There are three points worth making.

1. The accused in R. V. Shanahan was not 100 percent bound to a wheelchair. If a case came to court involving someone 100 percent unable to walk and was 100 percent reliant on a motorized wheelchair, the result may be different applying section 15 of the Charter (equality rights). See point 3 below - how about being stationary?
2. I suspect many motorized wheelchair-bound people are sometimes impaired with prescription drugs. The R. v. Shanahan decision means, as I read it, that all people on impairing pain medication, for instance, are under Canadian DUI laws, not able to leave their home.
3. Can a person be impaired simply sitting in a stationary motorized wheelchair? The DUI laws in Canada hold that a person in the driver's seat of a car or truck while impaired can be found guilty of our DUI laws. I haven't read a case addressing this issue, but it seems possible being stationary in a restaurant, for instance, while impaired in a motorized wheelchair Canada's DUI laws.