Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope of article 76.1.6 CSR and whether a driver with three impaired-driving related convictions (a second recidivism) can ever benefit from the exception allowing removal of a lifetime ignition interlock condition.
• Treatment of out-of-province impaired driving convictions (Ontario) under Québec’s Code de la sécurité routière and the reciprocal enforcement agreement between Québec and Ontario.
• Interpretation of the statutory requirement that only a “deuxième révocation ou suspension” (first recidivism, second event) can open the door to a possible lifting of the lifetime antidémarreur condition, excluding second recidivists.
• Calculation of the mandatory ten-year period during which the new licence must be continuously subject to the ignition interlock condition, and the exclusion from that period of any time without a valid licence or under sanction.
• Evidentiary weight of the applicant’s rehabilitation efforts (Alcoholics Anonymous involvement and pardon application) against the rigid, public-order nature of the CSR time calculation rules.
• Procedural issue of irrecevability: whether the application to lift the lifetime condition has any reasonable chance of success at law and can be struck at the preliminary stage.

Factual background

Jean-Michel Boily accumulated three criminal convictions related to impaired driving over several years, all tied to the operation of a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or with an excessive blood alcohol concentration. The first conviction was entered on 18 June 2007, for an offence committed on 14 June 2007 in Kingston, Ontario, under former section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, which prohibited driving while impaired by alcohol or drugs. This conviction triggered a revocation of his Québec driver’s licence and a one-year period during which he could not obtain a licence, although no new licence was issued at the end of that period because he did not apply. A second conviction followed on 23 September 2013, again for driving with impaired faculties contrary to former section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, based on conduct from 23 May 2009 in Québec. That conviction also resulted in revocation of his licence and another one-year ineligibility period, after which he again did not immediately seek a new licence. A third conviction was entered on 15 December 2014, this time for driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood, under former sections 253(1)(b) and 254(5) of the Criminal Code, in relation to an offence committed on 26 April 2013. Following this third impaired-driving related conviction, his licence was again revoked and he was barred from obtaining a new licence for two years. Only some years later did Mr. Boily apply for a new licence. On 20 January 2021, the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ) issued him a new driver’s licence. Because of his history of convictions and revocations tied to alcohol-related driving offences, the licence was made subject for life to the condition that he may only drive a vehicle equipped with a SAAQ-approved ignition interlock device (antidémarreur éthylométrique).

The application to lift the ignition interlock condition

Having driven for some time under this lifetime condition, Mr. Boily filed an application before the Court of Québec seeking to have the condition lifted. He relied on the second paragraph of article 76.1.6 of the Code de la sécurité routière (CSR), which, in simplified terms, allows a person in certain circumstances to ask the Court to remove the requirement that their licence be permanently restricted to vehicles with an ignition interlock. In his application, Mr. Boily acknowledged that his licence had been subject to the lifetime interlock condition since 2021. He also put forward that he had been committed to sobriety and rehabilitation for many years: he stated that he had been involved with Alcoholics Anonymous since 2014 and had commenced a pardon process in respect of his criminal convictions. These elements were intended to show that his relationship with alcohol no longer compromised his ability to drive safely. The SAAQ, however, did not respond on the merits of his rehabilitation evidence. Instead, it brought a preliminary motion in irrecevabilité (a motion to strike), arguing that the application to lift the condition was inadmissible because it had no reasonable chance of success in law. According to the SAAQ, Mr. Boily’s situation fell outside the narrow statutory category of drivers who can even ask the Court to remove a lifetime ignition interlock condition, and the mandatory ten-year period prescribed by the CSR had not yet expired.

The statutory framework under the Code de la sécurité routière

The case turned on the proper interpretation and application of article 76 and particularly article 76.1.6 of the CSR. Article 76 governs the issuance of a new licence after revocation or suspension when the triggering event is a conviction for one of the Criminal Code offences listed in article 180 CSR, including impaired driving, driving over the legal alcohol limit, and refusal to comply with a roadside demand. In general, following such a conviction, a person is barred from obtaining a new licence for a prescribed period (one, three, or five years) depending on how many previous revocations or suspensions they have had in the ten years preceding the latest event. In some circumstances, a first impaired-driving-related revocation permits a restricted licence with an ignition interlock once an absolute prohibition period has expired, on condition that the driver undergo a summary or full evaluation demonstrating that their relationship with alcohol or drugs does not compromise safe driving. Where an evaluation is passed successfully, the new licence is issued with a one-year interlock condition. The more stringent regime appears in article 76.1.6. It provides that where the infraction leading to revocation or suspension is alcohol- or drug-related, and the person has had at least one prior revocation or suspension for such an infraction within the preceding ten years, “the new permit and any subsequent permit issued during the person’s lifetime” must carry the condition that the person only drive a vehicle equipped with an approved ignition interlock. This is the default lifetime condition for repeat offenders. The second paragraph of article 76.1.6 then creates an exception. It states that when the situation involves a “deuxième révocation ou suspension de permis” (a second revocation or suspension, that is, a first recidivism), the person may, after a period of ten years during which the permit has been subject to the interlock condition, apply to the Civil Practice Division of the Court of Québec to have the condition removed. To succeed, the person must prove that their relationship with alcohol or drugs no longer compromises safe driving. The third paragraph of article 76.1.6 specifies that, in calculating the ten-year period, any time during which the person was not authorized to drive—either because they did not hold a permit or because their permit was under sanction—must be excluded. As a result, only years during which the person held a valid permit actively subject to the interlock condition count toward the ten-year clock. Legislative history and explanatory notes to Bill 165, which amended article 76.1.6, reinforce that this mechanism was deliberately narrow. The notes emphasize stricter treatment for repeat drunk drivers, providing that from the first recidivism onward, any future permit would automatically be interlock-restricted, with a possibility of lifting the condition only in the limited case of a first recidivist after ten years of compliant driving and a positive showing about their relationship with alcohol or drugs.

Recognition of out-of-province convictions and the reciprocity agreement

An important point in the case was whether the 2007 impaired-driving conviction in Ontario should count for Québec licensing purposes. Counsel for Mr. Boily argued that this Ontario conviction fell outside Québec’s CSR regime. The Court rejected that argument. Article 76 CSR refers broadly to “a conviction for an offence under the Criminal Code” leading to revocation or suspension, without limiting the place where the conviction is entered. Article 180 CSR lists the relevant Criminal Code offences that automatically trigger revocation or suspension when committed with a road vehicle, again without geographic restriction within Canada. In addition, a specific Québec regulation gives force to a reciprocity agreement between Québec and Ontario: the Règlement sur une entente entre le Québec et la province de l’Ontario concernant les permis de conduire et les infractions aux règles de la circulation routière. Under that agreement, each province undertakes to treat certain road-safety related convictions committed by its residents in the other province as if they had been committed on its own territory, for purposes of updating driver records and applying sanctions. This includes impaired-driving-related Criminal Code offences. The Court held that the legislative text and the reciprocity regime made the legislator’s intention clear: all relevant Criminal Code impaired-driving convictions must be taken into account by the SAAQ when determining revocations, suspensions, and conditions, regardless of whether the conviction occurred in Québec or Ontario. Consequently, Mr. Boily’s 2007 Ontario conviction was a first event counted under the CSR, followed by two further impaired-driving-related convictions in Québec, making him a second recidivist with three qualifying convictions overall.

Application of article 76.1.6 CSR to a second recidivist

On the first key criterion under article 76.1.6, the Court had to decide whether someone in Mr. Boily’s position—a second recidivist with three impaired-driving related convictions—could ever access the exception that allows the Court to lift a lifetime interlock condition. The wording of the second paragraph limits the remedy to cases of “deuxième révocation ou suspension de permis,” which the Court interpreted as referring to a first recidivism situation (one prior revocation/suspension and one new event). Viewed in the context of the entire provision and its public-order purpose—road safety and protection of the public—the Court considered the second paragraph an exception to the general rule that any subsequent permit, once a driver has repeated alcohol-related conduct, must remain subject to the interlock condition for life. As an exception in a public-interest statute, it must be interpreted strictly and not extended by analogy to scenarios not explicitly covered. The Court also took into account statements from the Minister of Transport during the detailed study of Bill 165, which underscored that from the first recidivism onward, any future permit would carry the interlock condition, with a possibility of lifting it only after ten years in the case of a first recidivist who meets the safety-related conditions. On this basis, the Court held that a second recidivist—a person with three qualifying convictions and revocations—does not fall within the category contemplated by the second paragraph of article 76.1.6. For such a driver, the CSR offers no pathway to seek judicial removal of the lifetime interlock condition. Consequently, Mr. Boily could not satisfy the first required criterion.

Failure to meet the ten-year period requirement

Even if the first criterion could somehow be stretched to include his situation, the Court found that the second criterion was also plainly unsatisfied. The statute requires “the expiration of a period of ten years during which the permit is subject to the interlock condition,” and mandates that any time when the person was not authorized to drive—either because they lacked a permit or because their permit was under sanction—must be excluded from that ten-year period. The evidence showed that Mr. Boily had held his new permit, with the lifetime ignition interlock condition attached, only since 20 January 2021. Before that date, there were long stretches when he had no licence at all because he had not applied for a new permit after earlier revocations. Those years without a permit do not count toward the ten-year period. The Court stressed that the text of article 76.1.6 is precise: what must elapse is ten full years in which the person actually holds a permit continuously subject to the interlock condition. On the undisputed dates, this period could not possibly have expired at the time of his application, and indeed would not be complete until at least January 2031. Mr. Boily argued that his years of sobriety, his participation in Alcoholics Anonymous since 2014, and his efforts towards obtaining a pardon should influence the assessment and the timing, presenting them as evidence that his relationship with alcohol no longer threatened safe driving. While the Court recognized these efforts as laudable from a personal rehabilitation standpoint, it held that they could not alter or shortcut the objective statutory calculation set out in article 76.1.6. The CSR simply does not allow the Court to waive or compress the ten-year period based on equitable considerations or evidence of rehabilitation; the timeline is rigid and of public-order character.

Procedural outcome and absence of monetary relief

Given that Mr. Boily’s situation involved a second recidivism (three impaired-driving related convictions) and that the ten-year period during which his permit must be subject to the interlock condition had not yet expired, the Court concluded that the first two statutory preconditions could not be met, now or in the future, under the current legislative scheme. As a result, his application had no reasonable chance of success in law. Without needing to examine the third criterion concerning his relationship to alcohol or drugs, the Court granted the SAAQ’s preliminary motion in irrecevabilité. It allowed the SAAQ’s motion, declared Mr. Boily’s application to lift the lifetime ignition interlock condition inadmissible, and dismissed that application. The judgment was rendered without costs (“sans frais de justice”), meaning that there was no order for payment of costs, damages, or any other monetary amount. In effect, the SAAQ emerged as the successful party, preserving the lifetime interlock condition on Mr. Boily’s licence, and since no monetary award or costs were ordered in its favour, no specific total amount can be determined.