Confused: Visiting/Moving to Canada with DUI and no BAC?

[Rip]

Hi,

I recently got a DUI in NJ (less than a year ago). Thankfully it was on an empty road and no one was around, but unfortunately I can't turn back time and have to live with the consequences. Anyway, I served the required license suspension and paid the necessary fines, but the BAC reading was thrown out.

I have read that having a DUI/DWI makes me inadmissable to Canada for X amount of years, but I found this on canadainternational.gc.ca:

"I have original paperwork to show that my actual blood alcohol reading for my drink driving conviction was 0.080% or less. Can I enter Canada as a visitor?

Yes, provided the conviction or traffic infringement notice was not for Impaired Driving, a drink driving offence alone with a blood alcohol reading 0.08% exactly or below will not make you inadmissible. You may proceed to Canada. You do not have to contact the Canadian Consulate General in Sydney, Australia."

I am very confused on how this works. Can I visit (or move to) Canada from the U.S. if my blood alcohol reading was deemed inadmissable but I still have the DUI on my record? I am guessing moving there is out of the question until the ten years have passed, but the above quote says pretty clearly that visiting with a BAC of less than 0.08 (in my case there is no valid BAC) is OK.

Can anyone help clear this up for me?

 

[scylla]

I am guessing moving there is out of the question until the ten years have passed, but the above quote says pretty clearly that visiting with a BAC of less than 0.08 (in my case there is no valid BAC) is OK.

I read it differently. It says that if you were convicted of an offence other than drunk driving and had a BAC of 0.08% or below - then you are OK. I don't think this applies to you because (if I understand correctly) you were in fact convicted of a DUI. The fact there is no valid BAC on record is therefore immaterial. The problem is that you have a DUI conviction. If you had (for example) been convicted just for speeding and not the DUI - then I think this rule would apply to you.

Anyway - that's my two cents...

 

[scylla]

OK - I take my answer back. I don't think I interpreted it correctly. I'm confused about what it means now. Hopefully someone smarter will be able to help.

 

[Rip]

scylla, thanks for the response. Yeah I can see why it is confusing because I don't get it either. ;D

I mean, it is possible to get a DUI/DWI with a BAC under .08 if the officer can "prove" the driver was "impaired" regardless of the reading. So *I think* the site is saying that someone who got a DUI/DWI with a BAC under .08 is admissable to Canada, whereas someone who got a DUI with a BAC over .08 is not. In my case, the BAC reading was thrown out. I could be way off, of course. The site specifies "impaired driving", which I have no idea what the difference is between that and DUI/DWI.

Again, if anyone can help sort this out, that would be great!

 

[NeedleArtist]

I'm going to attempt an interpretation. In an effort to clarify the language, I'm "Canadian-izing/American-izing" the language (which may or may not be the correct way to go about it!). I'll do my best to explain my reasoning wherever applicable.

I read the excerpt as: "As long as the conviction was not [specifically] for the offense of "Impaired Driving", a drinking and driving-related offence doesn't necessarily mean that a person is inadmissable."

I'm certainly no expert on Australian law, but I think its probably likely that (like in most other countries) there are a wide range of offences that are "drink-driving"-related. Most of these offences do not mean automatic disqualification (especially if the BAC is below or right at .08%). However, if the offense one is convicted of does happen to be the more serious "Impaired Driving" offense, then one IS, in fact, disqualified (no matter what his/her BAC level is.)

It's probable that in Australia, "Impaired Driving" is the most serious drink-driving-related offense (or at least very high up on the "seriousness" list). Remember, this is simply my own personal interpretation; an "educated guess" if you will. I may very well be wrong.

\Best of luck.

 

[Rip]

Thanks for the responses.

Since that site is very vague, let me rephrase the question.

I have a DUI and no BAC reading. Am I admissable to Canada?

The "no BAC reading" is really the only hope I have, so I sincerely hope that can allow me to at least visit the country from time to time.

 

[NeedleArtist]

I would say no. What matters is the conviction itself ... and the fact is you DO have a DUI conviction on record. Exactly HOW ther conviction came about is far less important.

 

[Rip]

Which is why I don't understand the International Canada site's Q/A. I would imagine allowing someone from Australia to come into Canada and someone from the U.S. to come in should have the same set of guidelines.

Yes, provided the conviction or traffic infringement notice was not for Impaired Driving, a drink driving offence alone with a blood alcohol reading 0.08% exactly or below will not make you inadmissible. You may proceed to Canada.

Looking up Canada's definition of impaired driving:


having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person's blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.

So that is what confuses me. What you said, NeedleArtist, makes sense. I have a conviction, which in my state is a traffic violation but in Canada would be a criminal thing, so that would be the end all in Canada presumably. But my BAC reading was deemed inadmissable by the courts. So really, from a legal standpoint, taking the "concentration in my blood" would be pointless because the courts ruled they could not use that as evidence. So yes, I still have the conviction, but nothing to illustrate that I was impaired other than a police officer's word (maybe that is enough for Canada...I would gladly let them watch the video of the field test and let them determine if that is what it came down to).

I am just trying to figure out what Canada's rules actually are because I hear different answers depending on who is answering. Maybe I have to call the CIC myself. If I do get stopped at the border, I will bring proof that my BAC was not recorded legally. Whether that works or not, who knows, but it is my only shot, I guess.

 

[Waz]

If your BAC was not used that means that you would not be guilty of 253(B) Criminal Code of Canada. (Over 80)
You may still have been convicted of an offence that can equate to 253(A) which is Impaired driving.

For anyone to give you an accurate answer we would need the exact section & wording of the offence in your state.
That wording would be compared to the Criminal Code to figure out what the correct offence would have been in Canada.