Vancouver Criminal Law

OUR LOCATIONS:

Vancouver: 604 685 8889
Richmond: 604 370 3050
Surrey: 604 593 8580
Victoria: 250 384 0100
Nanaimo: 250 754 9558
Kelowna: 250 860 2766
Kamloops: 250 372 3448
Fort McMurray: 780 750 7588
Prince George: 250 564 8835

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2016 Acumen Law Corporation.
All Rights Reserved.

Call 24 Hrs

604 685 8889

Call Us For Free Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Locations
 

IRP Judicial Review Case Results

Most successful in BC for Roadside Prohibition Cases

IRP_Judicial_review_case_resultsIRP Judicial Review Case Results

 

The lawyers at Acumen Law Corporation are leaders in successful judicial reviews of 90-day driving prohibitions. Read the IRP judicial review case results for IRP appeals to BC Supreme Court.

Read More:

Learn more about IRP Judicial Review and Appeals to BC Supreme Court.

Re: B.F. v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles)
BC Supreme Court
Lawyer: Kyla Lee

 

CASE FACTS:

Client was issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition for failing an approved screening device test. The client had been in a rollover collision prior to police arrival. A witness reported the collision to police. Although the officer recorded the time of driving in the Report, there was no evidence of how the officer concluded the accident occurred at that time.

The adjudicator inferred that the time of driving was provided by the witness, because the witness provided other evidence and was reliable. The adjudicator also inferred that the officer determined an accurate time of driving through investigation.

 

ARGUMENT:

The adjudicator drew an unreasonable inference regarding the time of driving. There was evidence of what information the witness provided to the officer, but the time of driving was not among this evidence. Inferences needed to be supported by the evidence and the adjudicator’s conclusion was mere speculation.

 

HELD: MATTER REMITTED FOR REHEARING

There was no evidence to support the adjudicator’s inference. While it was within a range of possibilities, it was no more possible than many other inferences. The adjudicator’s decision was unreasonable.

Re: Isaac, Gicas, Marshall, Thomas, and James v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) and the Attorney General of British Columbia
B.C. SUPREME COURT
Lawyer: Sacha Roudette

 

CASE FACTS:

Each Petitioner was served a 90 day Immediate Roadside Prohibition under the original legislation and applied for a review of the driving prohibition before the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. Each had a review set for late November or early December 2011. The Court released a decision that the original IRP legislation was unconstitutional and no longer in effect as of June 30, 2012. Throughout this time period, and despite knowing that the law would cease to exist as of June 30, 2012, the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles continued to adjourn the reviews past the date of invalidity. The Superintendent then confirmed each of the driving prohibitions under a law that then ceased to exist.

 

ARGUMENT:

The government had no jurisdiction to continue to rely on legislation after it had been declared unconstitutional and therefore of no force and effect. As a result of this error at law, the Petitioners sought not only to have the decisions of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles quashed, but also that the driving prohibitions themselves. The government made numerous arguments to justify the Superintendent’s reliance on unconstitutional legislation – ranging from so called “pragmatic considerations” to the application of the Interpretation Act to the prospective only application of the declaration of invalidity.

 

HELD: THE COURT GRANTED ALL RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONERS INCLUDING:

1. A DECLARATION that the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles has no authority to confirm driving prohibitions under unconstitutional legislation.
2. AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE the decisions of the Superintendent and thereby cancelling the driving prohibitions and reversing the monetary penalties, fees and impoundments.
3. AN ORDER QUASHING the driving prohibitions and reversing the monetary penalties, fees and impoundments.
4. AN ORDER QUASHING the remedial programs;
5. COSTS for the drivers.

Re: A.B. v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles)
B.C. SUPREME COURT
Lawyer: Kyla Lee

 

CASE FACTS:

Client was issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition for failing an ASD test. She was offered a second test, but the device did not accept a breath sample. The police evidence indicated that the device was outside the operating temperature range. An internal memo created by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles was used to say that there was no basis to conclude the device would not function outside the temperature range.

 

ARGUMENT:

The Superintendent acted without jurisdiction in relying on their own internal report as evidence in the hearing. The only parties permitted to provide evidence were the police and the applicant. There was no statutory authority allowing the Superintendent to rely on their own self-made report.

 

HELD: MATTER REMITTED FOR REHEARING

The RoadSafetyBC tribunal could no longer rely on the Superintendent’s Report on ASDs.

Re: D.M. v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles)
B.C. SUPREME COURT
Lawyer: Kyla Lee

 

CASE FACTS:

Client was issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition for refusing an ASD test. He was stopped by police inside a parkade, which was locked with a gate. On judicial review, it was argued that there was insufficient evidence that the client was on a highway or industrial road, as required by the Motor Vehicle Act.

 

ARGUMENT:

The adjudicator must be satisfied that the driver is in care and control on a highway or industrial road. Not all parking lots meet the definition of highway or industrial road. The evidence must establish that the driving occurred on this place, or the tribunal cannot confirm the prohibition. In the absence of this evidence from the police, the tribunal could not be satisfied that the client was a driver.

 

HELD: MATTER REMITTED FOR REHEARING

The RoadSafetyBC tribunal had insufficient evidence from which it could be said that the client was a driver within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act.

Re: C.M. v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles)
B.C. SUPREME COURT
Lawyer: Kyla Lee

 

CASE FACTS:

Client was issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition for failing two ASD tests. He told the police that he had his last drink “5 minutes ago.” The police waited an additional 10 minutes to allow for residual mouth alcohol to eliminate. The tribunal found that the results were reliable and the officer had sufficiently turned his mind to mouth alcohol by waiting only ten minutes.

 

ARGUMENT:

The officer could not reasonably rely on the test results. The tribunal failed to consider the reasonableness of the officer’s conduct given that people are not timing the time period from their last drink with a stop watch. Any answer at roadside must be taken as an estimation with some margin of error.

 

HELD: MATTER REMITTED FOR REHEARING

Re: W.R. v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles)
B.C. SUPREME COURT
Lawyers: Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko

 

CASE FACTS:

Client was issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition for failing two ASD tests. She had glassy eyes, but no other symptoms of impairment. On review, she argued that the tribunal had to apply Wilson v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) and revoke the prohibition. The tribunal refused to follow the decision.

 

ARGUMENT:

The Superintendent’s tribunal is bound by decisions of a higher court. It was wrong to not follow the BC Supreme Court Law. Adjudicators are not entitled to pick and choose which cases to follow and which to ignore.

 

HELD: MATTER REMITTED FOR REHEARING

A tribunal is bound be decisions of the BC Supreme Court interpreting their legislation. The RoadSafetyBC tribunal is not entitled to ignore the law.

Re: C.A.M. v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles)
B.C. SUPREME COURT
Lawyer: Kyla Lee

 

CASE FACTS:

Client was issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition for refusing to comply with an ASD demand. The officer told him it was his choice to blow or not blow. He was not told that it was mandatory to provide a sample, or that he would receive a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition if he did not comply.

In the hearing, the client provided a version of events contrary to that of the officer. His evidence was rejected because statements he made were “odd.”

 

ARGUMENT:

The adjudicator needs to scrutinize the evidence of the officer to the same degree of the applicant. The reasons for rejecting the client’s evidence were spurious. There was nothing odd about his statements. The evidence of the officer was accepted and the client’s evidence was measured against it.

 

HELD: MATTER REMITTED FOR REHEARING

There is no baseline of reliability attached to police evidence. The adjudicator must engage in a proper credibility assessment of all of the parties. The adjudicator failed to do so.

Call us at 604-685-8889 for a free consultation and learn how we can successfully help you.

IRP Judicial Review Case Results was last modified: by