Thank you.
My next question is addressed to Dr. Ouimet first; Dr. Brown can respond afterward.
I do understand the distinction you're making with regard to subsection 320.27(3). You're saying that the provision, as worded, is more mandatory than random. The heading contains the word "random", but there is no reference to that in the provision itself.
I'd like you to enlighten me about the following situations.
First, let's consider the case of a Canadian citizen who has had a meal and a few drinks, and then assesses his or her condition poorly, sincerely believing that he or she is below the limit. And now, let's consider the case of another person, who behaves with disrespect for the safety and welfare of others—a person for whom the pleasure of drinking alcohol is the only thing that counts, and who then takes the wheel of a car.
Could you enlighten me about how these situations would be handled?