90-Day Immediate Roadside Prohibitions – How They Work

We maintain an extensive library of 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition review decisions as well as calibration and service records for breathalyzers from around BC. We have succeeded in a remarkable number of 90-day IRP cases. Here are some of the reasons:

1. The evidence does not establish that the person blew a Fail or refused to provide a sample to a device.
2. The evidence does not establish that the person operated a motor vehicle.
3. The evidence is illogical.
4. The evidence is not properly before the tribunal.
5. The evidence does not establish that the demand for a sample of breath was lawful and therefore there is a reasonable excuse for not blowing.
6. The police did not provide the person with an opportunity to provide a second sample.
7. The person either did provide a sample (in refusal cases) or was entitled to refuse to provide a sample.
8. The person did not refuse (in refusal cases) to provide a sample.
9. The Fail reading is not reliable.

Effect of the Notice

Upon service of the Notice of Prohibition the clock begins to tick and you must act quickly to preserve your right to challenge the prohibition.

The Notice serves 3 main purposes:

1. It notifies the driver that they are prohibited from driving in BC for 90 days.
2. It notifies the driver that they have 7 days to apply to review the prohibition.
3. The Notice may be evidence used at the hearing.

Immediate Roadside Prohibition Review Hearing

The typical protections afforded a person accused of an offence have been greatly curtailed by the IRP legislation. The Government’s legislation denies you a right to cross examine the officer and evidence that would never be considered in a criminal proceeding will be relied upon. The police are supposed to swear or affirm the truth of their evidence, but improperly sworn evidence of the police has been used by the tribunal and given the same weight when reviewed by the tribunal. The standard of proof means that the evidence of the police will usually be preferred. If you have a lawyer represent you at your hearing, your odds of success may be greatly improved. There are a number of important reasons to have a lawyer represent you on your hearing:

1. An experienced lawyer who defends IRPs knows the law and the defences.
2. At our law office we have a vast library of material concerning the Approved Screening Devices used in BC.
3. We have a collection of review decisions dating back to the start of the IRP scheme.
4. We own and know how to test Approved Screening Devices.
5. We are experienced in deciphering police documents and records.
6. We know the defences that work.
7. We conduct Judicial Reviews of IRPs in Supreme Court so we carve out the defences to IRPs.
8. Only a lawyer has privilege.

When a lawyer makes submissions, his statements are not evidence. For example, if the Report does not prove the person was a driver, the lawyer cannot be asked if their client was the driver.