“3 Day Suspension”

Hello everyone,

I was randomly pulled over a few weeks ago on a Saturday night. I was driving friends home after a night out, I did have a few drinks, but I stopped knowing that I will be driving. I guess the time wasn't enough because the breathalyzer gave an "Alert". Anyway I was given a 3 day suspension. I was not charged/or convicted. He simply said that after 3 days I have to go to the ministry to get my license back ($150). My question is, can this affect my insurance? I've been reading up a lot about this and believe it shouldn't as this is not a conviction. Has anyone been through this? if so can you provide some insight? Also will this show on my driver abstract?

Administrative suspensions will be on your abstract but cannot be used against you for insurance purposes since they do not correspond to any conviction.

My insurer said that they ignore one but a second one might result in them declining to insure you.

I should clarify suspensions have to be under 1 year for it not to be used against you.

"If the length of an administrative lapse or suspension of a drivers licence is under one year, an insurer is not permitted to use the lapse or suspension in its risk classification system. For example, an administrative lapse or suspension of a drivers licence for less than one year must not affect an individuals driving record or the number of years licensed for the purposes of rating."

I agree with the above, that it shouldn't affect your insurance. It wouldn't make sense for it to affect it simply because it's not something you have the right to dispute, if you're not formally charged, you can't attend a trial and plead your innocence, therefore it would be unconstitutional for it to affect your insurance in any regard.

This is what appeared to have happened:

If you register a BAC from .05 to .08 (known as the "warn range"), you will receive an immediate drivers licence suspension. For a first occurrence, you will be suspended for three days. For a second occurrence in a five-year period, you will be immediately suspended for seven days and you must undergo a remedial alcohol-education program. For a third or subsequent time in a five year period, you will be immediately suspended for 30 days and you must undergo a remedial alcohol-treatment program and have an ignition interlock condition placed on your licence for six months. If you choose not to install an ignition interlock device, you must not drive until the condition is removed from your licence. If there is no one else available to drive and no safe place to park your vehicle, it will be towed at your expense.

Sonic wrote:I agree with the above, that it shouldn't affect your insurance. It wouldn't make sense for it to affect it simply because it's not something you have the right to dispute, if you're not formally charged, you can't attend a trial and plead your innocence, therefore it would be unconstitutional for it to affect your insurance in any regard.

This is what appeared to have happened:

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/ ... 8.16.shtml

If you register a BAC from .05 to .08 (known as the "warn range"), you will receive an immediate drivers licence suspension. For a first occurrence, you will be suspended for three days. For a second occurrence in a five-year period, you will be immediately suspended for seven days and you must undergo a remedial alcohol-education program. For a third or subsequent time in a five year period, you will be immediately suspended for 30 days and you must undergo a remedial alcohol-treatment program and have an ignition interlock condition placed on your licence for six months. If you choose not to install an ignition interlock device, you must not drive until the condition is removed from your licence. If there is no one else available to drive and no safe place to park your vehicle, it will be towed at your expense.

I have mixed feelings about this law, even though criminally .08 is the limit in Canada, in Ontario there is a pre-limit from .05 to .08 where you face extrajudicial penalties that fly in the face of due process. If this law wasn't about impaired drivers I would be strongly opposed to it but I would feel a lot more comfortable with the legislation if one could challenge the sanctions.

ynotp wrote:

Sonic wrote:I agree with the above, that it shouldn't affect your insurance. It wouldn't make sense for it to affect it simply because it's not something you have the right to dispute, if you're not formally charged, you can't attend a trial and plead your innocence, therefore it would be unconstitutional for it to affect your insurance in any regard.

This is what appeared to have happened:

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/ ... 8.16.shtml

If you register a BAC from .05 to .08 (known as the "warn range"), you will receive an immediate drivers licence suspension. For a first occurrence, you will be suspended for three days. For a second occurrence in a five-year period, you will be immediately suspended for seven days and you must undergo a remedial alcohol-education program. For a third or subsequent time in a five year period, you will be immediately suspended for 30 days and you must undergo a remedial alcohol-treatment program and have an ignition interlock condition placed on your licence for six months. If you choose not to install an ignition interlock device, you must not drive until the condition is removed from your licence. If there is no one else available to drive and no safe place to park your vehicle, it will be towed at your expense.

I have mixed feelings about this law, even though criminally .08 is the limit in Canada, in Ontario there is a pre-limit from .05 to .08 where you face extrajudicial penalties that fly in the face of due process. If this law wasn't about impaired drivers I would be strongly opposed to it but I would feel a lot more comfortable with the legislation if one could challenge the sanctions.

I prefer the old law where an officer had the option of issuing a 12 hour suspension to someone who appeared to be too tipsy to drive. That served the goal of public safety by getting a potentially dangerous driver off the road for the night without unduly infringing on peoples rights. The new law with its escalating sanctions seems to me to be a clear move by the government to do an end run around the courts and institute punishment without trial.

daggx wrote: The new law with its escalating sanctions seems to me to be a clear move by the government to do an end run around the courts and institute punishment without trial.

Same thing with the 7-day impoundment & licence suspension for "stunt driving."

Don't get me wrong - drunk driving is serious and deserves serious consequences. The need to prevent continuation of the offence was served by the 12-hour licence suspension (they probably should've had a longer suspension for higher BAC, but anyway)...

Of note, the Alco Sensor FST is calibrated to give police an actual reading up to .05 for use with the novice drivers. A caution will register from .05 all the way up to .1. A fail is anything from .1 and over giving and advantage to the motorist in most cases.

If a caution/warn is registered, the driver also has the right to a second analysis. But only if they request it.

The second analysis must be performed with a different approved screening device than was used in the prior analysis or, if the police officer thinks it is preferable, an intoxilyzer.

The possible down side of this is, if your blood alcohol goes up and over the limit, the second test stands and there is s potential that you would be charged with a Criminal Offence instead of just a three day suspension.

Also remember that just because you blow a caution, doesn't mean you aren't impaired. They are two distinct and separate offences.