What is the test for a 24-hour driving prohibition under s. 215(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act?

In Sanders v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2019 BCSC 458, Mr. Justice Giaschi set out a number of key principles to be considered on a review of a 24-hour prohibition under s. 215(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act. They can be summarized as follows: a) All that is required to issue a notice of driving prohibition under s. 215(3) is that a peace office have reasonable grounds, not reasonable and probable grounds, to believe that a driver’s ability to drive a motor vehicle is affected by a drug other than alcohol; b) There must be evidence of erratic driving or evidence of an impaired physical ability to drive. Evidence of both is not necessary, but it obviously strengthens the case for the prohibition; c) The issue under s. 215(3) is whether a driver’s ability to drive a motor vehicle is affected, not “impaired”, by a drug other than alcohol; and, d) Peace officers have a presumptive expertise in assessing whether a person’s ability to drive is affected by drugs and need not prove that expertise on judicial review. Given this expertise, a peace officer’s decision under s. 215(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act is entitled to substantial deference.

I accept that the respondent had sufficient evidence of the petitioner’s bad driving to establish reasonable grounds to believe her ability to drive was affected by a drug other than alcohol. Police dispatch provided information to the respondent suggesting the respondent had driven erratically, causing the accident. It was open to the respondent to rely on that information: see e.g. Wilson v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2013 BCSC 1458. The respondent then observed the collision scene on the wrong side of the road involving the petitioner’s vehicle and was entitled to make reasonable inferences from the state of the physical evidence as he observed it.