Section 320.29 — Criminal Code: Warrants to obtain blood samples
Text of the provision Official document
A justice may issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer to require a qualified medical practitioner or a qualified technician to take the samples of a person’s blood that, in the opinion of the practitioner or technician taking the samples, are necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made to determine the person’s blood alcohol concentration or blood drug concentration, or both, if the justice is satisfied, on an information on oath in Form 1, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person has, within the preceding eight hours, operated a conveyance that was involved in an accident that resulted in bodily harm to themselves or another person or in the death of another person; there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has alcohol or a drug in their body; and a qualified medical practitioner is of the opinion that by reason of any physical or mental condition of the person, the person is unable to consent to the taking of samples of their blood, and the taking of samples of the person’s blood will not endanger their health. A warrant issued under subsection (1) may be in Form 5, varied to suit the case. [Repealed, 2022, c. 17, s. 10] Samples of blood may be taken from a person under a warrant issued under subsection (1) only during the time that a qualified medical practitioner is satisfied that the conditions referred to in subparagraphs (1)(c)(i) and (ii) continue to exist. If a warrant issued under subsection (1) is executed, the peace officer shall, as soon as practicable, give a copy of it —
as a well as a notice in Form 5.1, varied to suit the case —
to the person from whom the samples of blood are taken. Subsections 320.28(7) to (10) apply with respect to the taking of samples of blood under this section.
Official source: laws-lois.justice.gc.ca
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from Canadian courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →