You are right. For some reason, perhaps to free up court time, BC decided not to prosecute drinking/driving cases years ago. Instead, it implemented Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) amendments allowing for police officers to do "roadside screening" and to issue 90-day driving prohibitions. There are fair numbers that go down that road.
I have practiced law in this province, although never did much criminal. Defended a handful of drunk driving cases in my early days. While I have no direct involvement in the criminal law system of BC any longer, I still read (as part of my work) virtually every judgment from every BC court that comes out every week, and all Supreme Court of Canada decisions that had their genesis in BC. So I have a fair handle as to what's going on in the courts. I used to see a great many drunk driving prosecutions. Now, and for quite awhile, the only ones I see are where death or bodily harm are involved. Above, I mentioned turning up over 1100 cases. Most were for "ordinary" drunk driving offences. Most of those are from the years 1996-2007. I simply do not see them anymore.
What has taken the place of the drunk driving criminal cases are civil cases under the MVA. Someone suspended by a cop can apply for a review by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. A delegate can set the prohibition aside. If that fails, the next step for the driver is judicial review of the Superintendent's decision. Now, I see those cases every week.
Prosecuting a drunk driving case is, I suppose, a bit expensive and uses up police resources. If a cop stops a suspected drunk driver, that person must be detained and taken to a police station. A breathalyzer technician must be called in and the driver has to blow into the machine to provide samples 15 minutes apart. The prosecutions could be a pain, with a requirement to call into court the cop, sometimes the technician, etc. There would be arguments about how the samples were taken, correct solution being used in the machine, correct calibration, challenges to the technician's qualifications and on and on. Then in time, came the Charter, with a new host of Charter arguments available. Those cases could be hard-fought. I think BC has thrown in the towel and decided to keep all that stuff out of the criminal law machinery.
