Criminal Defence · Refuse / Fail to Provide a Sample

Refuse Breathalyzer Lawyer in Toronto

Reviewed by Fadi Matthew Kazandji, Founding Partner, Kazandji Law · Toronto criminal defence · Last reviewed: July 2026

A refusal charge in Toronto usually begins in a single tense moment at the roadside — an officer holds out a screening device, the words come fast, and a frightened, confused, or angry driver says "no," hesitates, or blows in a way the machine reads as a failure. What can feel like a small act of resistance becomes a criminal file that carries a mandatory minimum penalty and the same licence suspension as a full impaired driving conviction. The good news is that a charge is only an allegation, and refusal cases are often more defensible than people assume.

At Kazandji Law, our criminal defence team represents people charged with refusing or failing to provide a sample and related driving offences across Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area. This page explains what you are actually facing under Canadian impaired-driving law in 2026, what the prosecution has to prove, the realistic penalties, and the defences that most often lead to a charge being withdrawn or defended successfully. If you would rather talk it through now, call 647-588-3234 for a free, confidential consultation.

An important starting point: this charge exists precisely so that refusing the test is not a way to avoid an impaired driving prosecution. Parliament made refusal carry a higher mandatory minimum fine than a first "over 80" for exactly that reason. But that does not make a refusal charge automatic or unbeatable — the law only criminalizes refusal of a lawful demand, and only where there is no reasonable excuse, which is why the details of your specific stop matter enormously.

What is "refusing to provide a sample" under Canadian law?

"DUI" is an American term — there is no offence in Canada literally called "DUI," and there is no offence called "refusing the breathalyzer" either. The charge comes from the Criminal Code of Canada, which was substantially reformed in December 2018. The offence is created by section 320.15(1), and its official title is "Failure or refusal to comply with demand." The provision reads:^[1]

"Everyone commits an offence who, knowing that a demand has been made, fails or refuses to comply, without reasonable excuse, with a demand made under section 320.27 or 320.28."

That single sentence carries a great deal of legal weight. It criminalizes not only an outright "no," but also a failure to comply — including conduct that frustrates the test, such as pretending to blow, blowing insufficiently on purpose, or delaying so long that no proper sample is obtained. Crucially, though, the offence is committed only where the person acts "without reasonable excuse," and only in relation to a demand made under one of two specific sections. Before anything else, an experienced lawyer identifies exactly which demand you allegedly refused, and whether that demand was itself lawful — because those two facts frame the entire case.

The two kinds of demand you can be charged with refusing

Section 320.15 does not stand alone. It punishes the refusal of a demand made under either section 320.27 or section 320.28, and those two sections describe very different investigative steps:

• The roadside screening demand — s. 320.27. This is the demand for the handheld Approved Screening Device (ASD) at the side of the road, and it can also include physical coordination tests or, in drug cases, a demand for a bodily sample for roadside drug screening. It is an investigative tool used to decide whether there are grounds to arrest you.^[2]
• The evidentiary demand — s. 320.28. After an arrest, an officer who has reasonable grounds to believe you operated while impaired or were "over 80" may demand breath samples on an Approved Instrument at the station (operated by a qualified technician), or, where breath testing is impractical, a blood sample. Refusing this evidentiary demand is what most people mean when they talk about "refusing the breathalyzer."^[3]

The distinction matters because the two demands have different legal preconditions. If the demand you refused did not actually meet the requirements of s. 320.27 or s. 320.28, then there was no lawful demand to refuse — and the foundation of the charge falls away.

The demand power: reasonable suspicion and mandatory alcohol screening

Section 320.27 sets out two separate paths by which an officer can demand a roadside breath sample, and understanding the difference is central to any refusal defence.

Under s. 320.27(1), an officer who "has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol or a drug in their body" and that the person has operated a conveyance within the preceding three hours may demand a roadside screening sample or physical coordination tests.^[2] That "reasonable suspicion" standard is a genuine legal threshold — the officer must have an objective, articulable basis, not a mere hunch.

Since December 2018, however, Canada also has mandatory alcohol screening. Under s. 320.27(2), an officer who already has an approved screening device in their possession may, in the course of a lawful stop, "require the person who is operating a motor vehicle to immediately provide" a breath sample — without needing any suspicion at all.^[2] In practical terms, this means that during an otherwise lawful traffic stop, a driver can be required to blow into an ASD even where the officer noticed nothing indicating alcohol. Refusing a lawful mandatory-screening demand is still a s. 320.15 offence. This is one of the most significant and least understood changes in modern impaired-driving law, and it is exactly the kind of issue a defence lawyer scrutinizes — because a mandatory-screening demand is lawful only if the underlying stop and the officer's possession of the device were themselves lawful.

What the Crown must prove

A refusal charge is not proven simply by an officer saying you refused. To secure a conviction under s. 320.15(1), the Crown must prove each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• A valid demand was made. The officer must have made a proper demand under s. 320.27 or s. 320.28, and the legal preconditions for that demand (reasonable suspicion, lawful possession of an ASD, or reasonable grounds to believe, as the case may be) must have been met. An unlawful demand cannot support a refusal conviction.
• You knew a demand had been made and understood it. The section expressly begins with "knowing that a demand has been made." If the demand was never communicated clearly — because of a language barrier, the chaos of the scene, or the officer's failure to make the requirement plain — the mental element may be missing.
• You failed or refused to comply. This can be an express refusal or conduct amounting to a failure, such as deliberately providing inadequate samples.
• You had no reasonable excuse. Because the words "without reasonable excuse" are built into the offence, the absence of a reasonable excuse is part of what the Crown's case must ultimately establish once the issue is genuinely raised.

Each of these elements is a potential line of defence. In many files, the weakest link is the very first one — whether the demand was lawful in the first place.

Why refusing is not a loophole — the penalties

A persistent myth is that refusing the test is a clever way to deny the police their evidence and beat an impaired driving charge. In reality, Parliament closed that door deliberately, and the penalties for refusal are structured to be at least as serious as — and in the case of a low reading, more serious than — pleading to the substantive offence.

Refusal is a hybrid offence, which means the Crown chooses whether to proceed by indictment (the more serious track) or by summary conviction (the less serious track). The maximum penalties and mandatory minimums are set out in the general punishment provision, section 320.19 of the Criminal Code, which applies to impaired operation, "over 80," and refusal alike.^[4]

The mandatory minimum fine for a first refusal is $2,000

This is the single most important number to understand. Section 320.19 sets a general first-offence minimum fine of $1,000. But for refusal specifically, s. 320.19(4) provides that a person who commits a first offence under s. 320.15(1) "is liable, for a first offence, to a fine of not less than $2,000."^[4] Compare that with the graduated minimum fines for a first "over 80":^[4]

The practical lesson is stark: a driver who refuses faces the same minimum fine as the very highest-reading "over 80" offender, and a higher minimum than someone who blew a low or moderate reading. Refusing does not make the charge go away — it substitutes one criminal charge for another that is treated at least as harshly, while also depriving you of any argument that your actual blood-alcohol level was low.

Escalating penalties for repeat offences

Like the substantive impaired offences, refusal carries escalating mandatory minimum jail sentences for repeat offenders. Under s. 320.19, a second offence carries a minimum of 30 days in jail, and a third or subsequent offence a minimum of 120 days.^[4] These minimums apply across the family of impaired-driving offences, so a prior "over 80" can make a later refusal a "second offence" for sentencing purposes, and vice versa.

Maximum penalties and aggravated refusals

If the Crown proceeds by indictment, a refusal under s. 320.15(1) carries a maximum of 10 years imprisonment; on summary conviction, the maximum is a fine of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment for up to two years less a day.^[4] The charge also becomes dramatically more serious where it is tied to a collision. Section 320.15(2) creates an aggravated offence where the person refuses knowing that, or reckless as to whether, they were involved in an accident resulting in bodily harm, and s. 320.15(3) where the accident resulted in death.^[1] These are among the most consequential cases we handle and demand an immediate, thorough defence.

One protection built into the section is worth noting: under s. 320.15(4), a person convicted of an offence under this section "is not to be convicted of another offence under this section with respect to the same transaction" — so a single refusal cannot be split into multiple refusal convictions.^[1]

Ontario licence & administrative penalties (2026)

Long before your criminal case is decided, Ontario imposes its own immediate administrative penalties under the Highway Traffic Act, and a refusal triggers the most serious tier — the same one that applies to a driver who blows over 0.08. These penalties apply the moment you are charged, regardless of the eventual criminal outcome; an administrative suspension is not itself a criminal conviction. Ontario updated several of these penalties effective January 1, 2026, and the figures below reflect the current rules.^[5]

If you fail or refuse a test

• Immediate roadside 90-day licence suspension
• 7-day vehicle impoundment (you pay the towing and storage)
• $550 administrative monetary penalty
• A mandatory education or treatment program, plus an ignition interlock condition on repeat occurrences
• A licence reinstatement fee is payable every time your licence is suspended

Ontario's published penalty framework expressly lists drivers "who fail or refuse to comply with a demand for alcohol or drug testing" alongside those who register 0.08 or more — meaning a refusal is administratively treated exactly like a failed evidentiary test, with no benefit gained from having declined.^[5]

On conviction: the federal driving prohibition and interlock

If you are ultimately convicted of refusal in criminal court, Ontario adds further consequences on top of the administrative ones. A first conviction brings a provincial licence suspension of at least one year, a mandatory education or treatment program, and a requirement to install and use an ignition interlock device for at least one year; the suspensions and interlock requirements lengthen sharply for repeat convictions.^[5] Separately, the criminal court imposes its own federal driving prohibition under the Criminal Code, which stacks on top of the provincial suspension. In other words, one refusal charge triggers two parallel systems of consequences — the criminal court and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation.

Ontario also runs a Reduced Suspension with Ignition Interlock program that can meaningfully shorten a licence suspension for eligible drivers — but only if strict deadlines are met after the charge. Assessing your eligibility for that stream is one of the very first things we do, because acting quickly can get you legally driving again far sooner than the standard suspension would allow.^[5]

"Reasonable excuse": what actually counts

Because the offence is committed only "without reasonable excuse," this defence sits at the heart of many refusal cases — but it is narrower and more demanding than people hope. A reasonable excuse is not simply a good reason for being upset, and it is emphatically not a disagreement with the police, a belief that you were not impaired, or a wish to call a friend or family member first.

What can amount to a reasonable excuse is a genuine inability to comply, or circumstances that made compliance impossible or unreasonable. The classic example is a real, demonstrable medical condition — a respiratory illness, a recent injury, or another physical condition — that genuinely prevents a person from providing an adequate breath sample despite honest effort. A person who truly cannot physically blow enough air to operate the instrument is in a different position from one who simply will not. The excuse must be genuine and, where it is medical, is usually best supported by evidence; a bare after-the-fact assertion rarely succeeds on its own.

Other situations can raise a reasonable-excuse argument depending on the facts — for example, where the equipment malfunctioned, where the officer's instructions were so unclear that meaningful compliance was impossible, or where an unresolved and legitimate concern about the process intervened. These are fact-specific arguments. Part of a defence lawyer's job is to identify whether a reasonable excuse is genuinely available on your facts, and to marshal the evidence to support it, rather than to promise a result the disclosure may not bear out.

The right to counsel and refusals

A frequent flashpoint is the interaction between the demand and your right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter. For the roadside screening demand, the law generally requires the sample to be provided immediately, and the opportunity to consult a lawyer is typically deferred until after arrest. For the evidentiary demand at the station, however, you must be given a genuine opportunity to speak privately with a lawyer before providing samples. Where the police deny or unreasonably delay that opportunity, or fail to properly advise you of your rights, it can affect both the admissibility of what followed and the fairness of treating a subsequent refusal as an offence. These are technical issues that turn on exactly what was said and when.

The refusal court process in Toronto, step by step

Understanding the sequence of a refusal case helps you see where a defence can be built. Most files move through the same stages in the Ontario Court of Justice.

1. The stop, the demand, and the arrest

Nearly every refusal case begins with a traffic stop and a demand — whether a roadside ASD demand under s. 320.27 or, after arrest, an evidentiary demand under s. 320.28. How the stop unfolded, what the officer observed, whether the legal preconditions for the demand were met, and precisely how the demand was communicated are frequently the whole case. At the point of arrest or detention, your right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter is engaged.

2. Release or bail

For a straightforward first refusal charge, most people are released by police on an appearance notice or an undertaking, sometimes with conditions. More serious files — a refusal tied to a collision, a prior record, or related charges — may require a bail hearing, where arriving with a workable release plan and sureties can be decisive.

3. Disclosure

Your lawyer obtains disclosure — the Crown's evidence. The Crown's constitutional duty to disclose all relevant material flows from the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Stinchcombe (1991).^[6] In a refusal case, disclosure typically includes the officers' notes and their stated grounds for the demand, the ASD and instrument records, the exact wording used to make the demand, any statements, and video from in-car or booking cameras. A meticulous review of this material — especially the officer's articulated basis for the demand — is where most winning defences begin.

4. Crown pre-trial and resolution discussions

Most refusal cases involve a Crown pre-trial, where your lawyer tests the strength of the case and explores whether it can be resolved on favourable terms. Where the lawfulness of the demand is genuinely in question, or where a reasonable-excuse argument has real force, this stage is often where a well-prepared file is resolved — sometimes by a withdrawal, sometimes by a plea to a lesser or different charge — long before trial.

5. Charter applications and trial

If the case does not resolve and there are viable issues, it proceeds to trial — frequently built around whether the demand was lawful and whether the Charter was complied with. If a detention or demand is found unconstitutional, or the Crown cannot prove a lawful demand, the refusal charge is usually left without a foundation. From first appearance to conclusion, a contested refusal case commonly takes several months.

How Kazandji Law defends refusal charges

Refusal cases are won on detail, and the right strategy depends entirely on the disclosure in your specific file. The issues our lawyers most often raise include:

• Was the demand lawful? This is usually the central question. For a s. 320.27(1) roadside demand, did the officer actually have reasonable grounds to suspect alcohol or a drug in your body? For a mandatory-screening demand under s. 320.27(2), was the underlying stop lawful and did the officer lawfully have the ASD in their possession? For an evidentiary demand under s. 320.28, did the officer have reasonable grounds to believe you had committed an impaired or "over 80" offence? If the demand's legal preconditions were not met, there was no lawful demand to refuse.
• Did you understand the demand? The offence requires that you knew a demand had been made. A demand lost in the noise and stress of the scene, obscured by a language barrier, or never clearly communicated may fail to establish the required knowledge.
• Reasonable excuse. Where a genuine medical inability, an equipment problem, or another legitimate circumstance prevented compliance, we develop and support that argument with the appropriate evidence.
• Arbitrary detention (Charter s. 9). Many refusal cases begin with a vehicle stop. If the detention was arbitrary or the stop was a pretext, the demand that flowed from it is vulnerable.
• Denial of the right to counsel (Charter s. 10(b)). Were you promptly and properly advised of your right to a lawyer and, before the evidentiary test, given a real and private opportunity to exercise it?
• Exclusion of evidence (Charter s. 24(2)). Where a Charter breach is established, the court applies the three-part test from R. v. Grant (2009): the seriousness of the state's Charter-infringing conduct, the impact of the breach on the accused's protected interests, and society's interest in a trial on the merits.^[7]
• Did a refusal actually occur? An "insufficient sample" is not always a refusal. We examine whether the reading reflected a deliberate failure to comply or an honest, unsuccessful attempt — and whether the instrument or its operation was at fault.

These are issues that may be available — not guarantees. No responsible lawyer promises a result before reviewing the disclosure. What we promise is a rigorous, honest assessment and a defence built around the specific facts and evidence in your case.

Common myths about refusing a breath sample

"If I refuse, they have no evidence, so I win." The opposite is true. Refusing is itself the offence under s. 320.15, it carries a $2,000 mandatory minimum fine for a first offence, and it triggers the same 90-day Ontario licence suspension as blowing over 0.08. You lose the test and gain a charge.

"Refusing is safer than blowing a high number." Not on the numbers. A first refusal carries the same $2,000 minimum fine as the highest tier of "over 80," and a higher minimum than a low or moderate reading — while removing any chance to argue your actual BAC was low.

"I can refuse until I've spoken to my lawyer." For the roadside screening test, the sample is generally required immediately and the right to counsel is deferred; insisting on calling a lawyer first is usually not a reasonable excuse. Speak to a lawyer at the first genuine opportunity, but understand the timing.

"They can't make me blow if they didn't see me drinking." Since 2018, mandatory alcohol screening under s. 320.27(2) allows a lawful demand during a lawful stop even without any suspicion of alcohol. Refusing a lawful mandatory-screening demand is still an offence.

"An insufficient sample isn't a refusal." It can be. Deliberately providing inadequate samples is treated as a failure to comply; but a genuine, honest inability may be a reasonable excuse. Which one applies is a factual question decided on the evidence.

"There's no point fighting a refusal charge." Refusal cases often turn on whether the demand was lawful — a technical, winnable issue — and the stakes (a mandatory minimum, a criminal record, a long suspension) are anything but small.

What to do if you have been charged with refusing a sample

1. Say as little as possible. Be polite, provide identification if required, but exercise your right to remain silent about the events. Do not try to talk your way out of it.
2. Exercise your right to counsel. Ask to speak with a lawyer as soon as you are arrested or detained, and do so before the evidentiary test if you are given the opportunity.
3. Write down everything you remember while it is fresh — the exact words of the demand, what the officer said and did, any medical issue that affected your ability to blow, the timeline, and who was present.
4. Preserve helpful evidence. Keep all paperwork from the arrest and release, and note any medical condition, medication, or physical limitation that may be relevant to a reasonable-excuse argument. If you have relevant medical records, secure them.
5. Do not post about the case online and do not discuss the details in writing with friends.
6. Act quickly on your licence. Because Ontario's suspension and the reduced-suspension interlock deadlines run from early in the process, tell your lawyer immediately so no time-sensitive option is lost.

Why choose Kazandji Law for your refusal defence

Kazandji Law is a Toronto criminal and family law firm built on a proactive, no-nonsense approach with a genuine personal touch. Refusal cases reward preparation — the close reading of the officer's stated grounds for the demand, a working command of the s. 320.27 and s. 320.28 preconditions, fluency in Charter litigation, and the judgment to know when to press the lawfulness of the demand and when to build a reasonable-excuse argument. Our team brings that preparation to every driving file, whether it is a first-time roadside refusal or a refusal tied to a collision.

We appear in the Ontario Court of Justice and Superior Court locations across the Greater Toronto Area — including the criminal court at 10 Armoury Street in downtown Toronto — and we defend refusal charges wherever they arise: downtown Toronto, North York, Scarborough, Etobicoke, Thornhill, Vaughan, Markham, Oakville, and beyond. You can meet our team, review our case results, and explore our full range of driving offence defence services — from impaired driving and "over 80" to drug-impaired driving.

Frequently asked questions

Is refusing a breathalyzer a criminal offence in Canada?

Yes. Refusing or failing to comply with a lawful demand for a breath, blood, or other sample is a criminal offence under section 320.15(1) of the Criminal Code. It is a separate charge from impaired driving or "over 80," and a conviction results in a criminal record.

Is refusing the test a way to avoid an impaired driving charge?

No — that is a myth. Parliament made refusal its own offence precisely so it is not a loophole. A first refusal carries a mandatory minimum fine of $2,000, which is higher than the minimum for a low-range "over 80," and it triggers the same 90-day Ontario licence suspension. You gain a criminal charge and lose any argument that your blood-alcohol level was low.

What is the penalty for a first refusal charge in Ontario?

On conviction, a first refusal carries a mandatory minimum fine of $2,000 under the Criminal Code, plus a federal driving prohibition and, in Ontario, a licence suspension of at least one year and a mandatory ignition interlock requirement. Administratively, being charged also triggers an immediate 90-day roadside licence suspension, a 7-day vehicle impoundment, and a $550 penalty. Maximum penalties reach up to 10 years by indictment.

What must the Crown prove in a refusal case?

The Crown must prove that the officer made a valid demand under section 320.27 or 320.28, that you knew about and understood the demand, that you failed or refused to comply, and that you had no reasonable excuse. If the demand itself was not lawful, there is no valid demand to refuse and the charge should fail.

What counts as a "reasonable excuse" for refusing?

A reasonable excuse is generally a genuine inability to comply — most commonly a real medical or physical condition that prevents you from providing an adequate sample despite honest effort. It does not include disagreeing with the police, believing you were not impaired, or wanting to speak to someone first. The excuse must be genuine and is usually best supported by evidence.

Can the police demand a breath sample if they did not see me drinking?

Yes. Since December 2018, mandatory alcohol screening under section 320.27(2) allows an officer who lawfully has an approved screening device to demand a roadside breath sample during a lawful stop without any suspicion that you have been drinking. Refusing a lawful mandatory-screening demand is still an offence.

Is a roadside screening demand different from the station breathalyzer?

Yes. The roadside test uses a handheld Approved Screening Device under section 320.27 and is an investigative tool; a "fail" gives the officer grounds to arrest. The evidentiary test is done later at the station on an Approved Instrument under section 320.28, requires reasonable grounds to believe an offence was committed, and produces the results used as proof of your blood-alcohol concentration. Refusing either can be charged under section 320.15.

What happens if I could not physically provide a sample?

A genuine inability to provide a sample — for example, because of a respiratory condition, a recent injury, or another physical limitation — may amount to a reasonable excuse, which is a defence to the charge. This is a fact-specific argument that usually needs to be supported by evidence, such as medical documentation, so tell your lawyer about any relevant condition right away.

Will a refusal charge affect my driver's licence right away?

Yes. In Ontario, a refusal triggers an immediate 90-day roadside licence suspension and a 7-day vehicle impoundment the moment you are charged, along with a $550 administrative penalty — separate from and in addition to any penalty imposed later in criminal court. Because reduced-suspension interlock deadlines run early, prompt legal advice matters.

Can a refusal charge be withdrawn or defended successfully?

It can. Refusal cases frequently turn on whether the demand was lawful — whether the officer had the required suspicion or grounds, whether a mandatory-screening stop and device were lawful, and whether your Charter rights were respected. Where those preconditions are not met, or a reasonable excuse applies, the charge may be withdrawn or defended at trial. The outcome depends on the disclosure.

Do I really need a lawyer for a refusal charge?

Yes — arguably more than people realize. Refusal carries a mandatory minimum penalty a judge cannot waive on conviction, so the best outcomes usually have to be secured by challenging the charge itself. Because those defences turn on technical detail about the demand and the Charter, and because your licence is affected immediately, the value of an experienced lawyer is greatest early.

How much does a refusal / impaired driving lawyer cost?

Fees depend on the complexity of the case and whether it resolves early or proceeds to a contested trial. Kazandji Law offers a free initial consultation and will give you a clear picture of the process and the likely cost before you decide anything.

Sources & legal references

1. Criminal Code of Canada (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46), s. 320.15 (failure or refusal to comply with a demand; accident causing bodily harm or death; only one conviction): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-320.15.html.
2. Criminal Code of Canada, s. 320.27 (testing for presence of alcohol or drug — s. 320.27(1) demand on reasonable suspicion; s. 320.27(2) mandatory alcohol screening): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-320.27.html.
3. Criminal Code of Canada, s. 320.28 (evidentiary breath samples on an approved instrument, and blood samples, on reasonable grounds to believe): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-320.28.html.
4. Criminal Code of Canada, s. 320.19 (punishment for offences under ss. 320.14(1) and 320.15(1); s. 320.19(1) general minimums and maximums; s. 320.19(3) high-BAC minimum fines; s. 320.19(4) $2,000 minimum fine for a first offence under s. 320.15(1)): laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-320.19.html.
5. Government of Ontario, "Impaired driving" (penalties effective January 1, 2026 — 90-day immediate licence suspension, 7-day vehicle impoundment, $550 penalty for failing or refusing a test; conviction consequences and Reduced Suspension with Ignition Interlock): ontario.ca/page/impaired-driving.
6. R. v. Stinchcombe, 1991 CanLII 45 (SCC) (Crown's duty of disclosure): canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1991/1991canlii45.
7. R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32 (three-part test for exclusion of evidence under Charter s. 24(2)): canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc32.

Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Canadian and Ontario impaired-driving law, including the offence of refusing or failing to provide a sample, and is not legal advice. Laws, penalties, and administrative rules change, and how they apply depends on the specific facts of your case. For advice about your situation, contact a lawyer. Contacting Kazandji Law does not create a solicitor-client relationship until a retainer is signed.