Refusal and Impaired Driving Charges in Newmarket and York Region

If York Regional Police charged you with refusing to provide a breath sample, you may have been told at the roadside that refusing was “the same as blowing over.” In terms of penalty, that is roughly right, and in one respect a refusal is treated more harshly. But a refusal charge is a different case from an over 80 charge, with different elements, different evidence, and different defences. Understanding those differences is the starting point for deciding what to do about it.

This article focuses on refusal charges and how they are handled at the Newmarket courthouse. Much of it also applies if you were charged with impaired operation or over 80 at the same time, which is common.

Where York Region Cases Are Heard

Criminal charges laid by York Regional Police are heard at the courthouse at 50 Eagle Street West in Newmarket, which houses both the Ontario Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Justice. York Regional Police cover the region’s municipalities, from Vaughan, Markham, and Richmond Hill in the south to Newmarket, Aurora, East Gwillimbury, and Georgina in the north. Impaired and refusal charges come out of RIDE programs and ordinary traffic stops on regional roads, and from the corridors around Highways 400, 404, and 407.

If you have never been to the building, our Newmarket courthouse guide covers parking, security, and what to expect inside, and our Newmarket location page has an overview of the court and the virtual appearance links.

What the Offence Actually Requires

Refusal is found in section 320.15(1) of the Criminal Code. A person commits the offence who, knowing that a demand has been made, fails or refuses to comply, without reasonable excuse, with a demand made under section 320.27 or 320.28.

Each piece of that sentence is something the Crown has to prove, and each is a place where a refusal case can fail:

1. A demand was made, and it was a lawful demand under one of the two sections named.
2. You knew the demand had been made. A demand you did not hear or did not understand is not a demand you knowingly refused.
3. You failed or refused to comply. That can be an outright “no,” but it can also be conduct: failing to provide a suitable sample, stalling, or making what the officer says were deliberately inadequate attempts.
4. You had no reasonable excuse.

The Two Kinds of Demand

It matters which demand you are alleged to have refused, because the legal requirements for each are different.

The roadside screening demand

Under section 320.27(1), an officer who has reasonable grounds to suspect that you have alcohol or a drug in your body, and that you operated a conveyance within the preceding three hours, can demand that you immediately provide a breath sample into an approved screening device. Under section 320.27(2), the mandatory alcohol screening provision, an officer who has an approved screening device in their possession can make that demand of a person operating a motor vehicle in the course of any lawful stop, without any suspicion at all.

Two words in those provisions do most of the work in court. The first is “immediately”: the roadside demand is built around a sample given on the spot. The second, under mandatory screening, is “in his or her possession”: the device has to be there. When an officer makes a screening demand and then has to wait for a device to be brought to the scene, or when the demand is not made promptly after the grounds arise, the lawfulness of the demand and the treatment of your right to counsel both become live issues.

The breath demand at the station

Under section 320.28(1), an officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that you operated a conveyance while impaired by alcohol, or with a blood alcohol concentration of 80 or more, can demand that you provide breath samples into an approved instrument, operated by a qualified technician. That is a higher standard than suspicion, and the demand must be made as soon as practicable.

By the time you are at the station you have been arrested, and your right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter is fully engaged. Police must tell you about that right and give you a real opportunity to exercise it before they ask for samples. A refusal that follows a denial of counsel is a very different case from one that follows a proper consultation. Our article on Charter rights in criminal defence explains how those breaches are argued.

What Counts as a “Refusal”

People are often surprised by how broadly the offence can be charged. In practice, refusal allegations fall into a few patterns:

• An express refusal. “I’m not blowing.” These are the simplest cases for the Crown, but they still depend on a lawful demand and a clear understanding of it.
• A failure to provide a suitable sample. The officer says you blew around the mouthpiece, stopped too early, or did not blow hard enough, despite instructions and several chances. The defence often turns on whether you were genuinely trying, whether the instructions were clear, and whether the device was working properly.
• Delay treated as refusal. Asking to call a lawyer before the roadside test, or insisting on conditions before blowing, can be treated as a refusal of a demand that requires immediate compliance. Whether that is fair in a particular case depends on the exact sequence of events.
• A change of mind. Someone says no, then almost immediately says they will blow. Whether the initial refusal was final, and whether police were obliged to give a second chance, is a fact-specific question the courts have considered many times.

Because so much turns on the sequence, video is often the most important evidence in a refusal case. In-car camera, body-worn camera where available, and breath-room video can show exactly what was said, how many attempts were made, and how the instructions were given.

Reasonable Excuse

“Without reasonable excuse” is a real element of the offence, but it is narrow. A genuine medical inability to provide a sample, supported by evidence, can be a reasonable excuse. Nervousness, a belief that you were sober, or a belief that the stop was unfair generally is not. If you think the demand was unlawful, the place to challenge it is in court, through your lawyer, not at the roadside. If a medical condition affected your ability to blow, tell your lawyer right away and gather records, because this kind of defence needs evidence and it takes time to assemble.

Why a Refusal Can Be Worse Than Blowing Over

On penalty, refusal is not a lesser offence. Section 320.19(4) sets the minimum fine for a first refusal at $2,000, the same as the minimum for a first over 80 offence with a blood alcohol concentration of 160 or more, and double the $1,000 minimum for an ordinary first over 80. A second offence carries a minimum of 30 days in jail and a third 120 days. The court must impose a driving prohibition, and no discharge is available.

On the administrative side, Ontario treats refusing a demand the same as registering 0.08 or more: an immediate 90-day licence suspension, a seven-day vehicle impoundment, and a $550 penalty. After conviction, the Ministry’s suspension, interlock, and zero-tolerance consequences apply as they would for any other impaired driving conviction. Our article on what changed for impaired driving in Ontario in 2026 sets those out.

Refusal also shuts off some of the defences available in a breath case. There is no reading to attack, no instrument maintenance record to test, and no two-hour question. The case becomes about the demand, the words used, and what happened in a short window of time.

The flip side is that the Crown has no reading either. If the refusal charge fails, there may be little left, unless there is also an impaired operation count supported by observations.

Multiple Refusal Charges

Section 320.15(4) provides that a person convicted of refusal is not to be convicted of another refusal offence for the same transaction. If you were alleged to have refused both at the roadside and at the station, you will not end up with two refusal convictions for one night.

Early Resolution and Refusal

Ontario’s reduced suspension program applies to refusal convictions as well as impaired and over 80. A first-time offender who pleads guilty and is sentenced within 90 days of the offence can have the post-conviction licence suspension substantially reduced in exchange for an ignition interlock period. Our guide to early interlock eligibility explains how the program works and why the 90-day clock starts on the offence date.

That creates real pressure to decide quickly. It is pressure worth resisting until the video and notes have been reviewed. Refusal cases can look straightforward on the synopsis and very different on the footage.

How Mor Fisher Can Help

On a refusal file we start by obtaining every recording that exists of the demand and the attempts, then lay the officer’s notes against the video second by second. We look closely at whether the demand was lawful, whether it was clearly made and understood, whether the device was on hand, and how your right to counsel was handled. We give you a straight assessment of the case before the 90-day window closes, so the choice between resolving and fighting is an informed one. Our broader approach to these charges is on our impaired driving page.

Charged with refusal or impaired driving in Newmarket, Aurora, Richmond Hill, Vaughan, or elsewhere in York Region? Contact Mor Fisher LLP at 705-721-6642 or through our contact page. Ask for your disclosure early, and make sure it includes the video, because in a refusal case the recording is usually the evidence that decides it.