Failing or refusing to comply with certain impaired-driving demands is itself a Criminal Code offence. The issue is not simply whether a sample was obtained: the prosecution must prove the elements of the refusal offence, including the relevant demand and non-compliance, while the statute recognizes reasonable excuse.
Primary legislation and official process sources checked October 5, 2026. Criminal law and court procedure can change; verify the current source before relying on a provision or deadline.
The demand comes first
The legal analysis begins with the particular demand police made and the statutory authority relied upon.
- screening demand
- evidentiary breath demand
- blood or drug-related demand
Failure or refusal
Conduct can be treated as non-compliance even when a person does not use the word 'refuse'; the facts and instructions matter.
- express refusal
- insufficient sample
- conduct and communication
Reasonable excuse
The Code recognizes a reasonable-excuse issue, which is highly fact-specific and should not be reduced to a checklist.
- medical circumstances
- ability to comply
- evidence
Separate offence
A refusal allegation is legally distinct from proving operation while impaired or a prohibited concentration.
- section 320.15
- separate charge
- evidentiary overlap
Consequences
A refusal conviction can carry serious criminal and driving consequences, while immediate provincial licensing steps may occur before trial.
- driving prohibition
- licence suspension
- sentencing
Official and authoritative sources
- Justice Canada — Criminal Code
- Nova Scotia Legal Aid — Criminal Law Resources
- Nova Scotia — Impaired Driving Information