We’re getting a reputation in British Columbia, but it isn’t for our mountains, our pipeline flip-flopping premier or our deflating real estate bubble. It turns out that we are now being viewed as The Land That Justice Forgot. The Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme (IRP or ARP scheme – whatever you want to call it) is making us look like some backward backwater where the Charter of Rights is yet to be proclaimed.
In our careful search of newspapers across Canada, not a single editorial has supported the BC Government in its quest to eliminate the Charter Rights of drivers. But regularly our province is lambasted for its foolishness.
In case you didn’t know, if you receive a 90-day IRP for Fail or Warn, the police do not need to comply with your “Rights” under the Charter of Rights. The reason for this is because there is no remedy available at the hearing. If the police beat you and lie about it (see: Why we defend drunk driving cases) tough luck for you because the Government says that they are allowed to ignore the Charter.
How did they manage that, you ask? The only way would be to use the Notwithstanding Clause, and that would have been front page news. It has only been used a handful of times, and then only in exceptional and controversial circumstances.
However, said the people who advise the Government, there is another way. We could make it a policy decision to not give Charter remedies. That way, they argued, we could ignore bad police behaviour, sweep it under the carpet, hide it, stick it in the closet, etc. And if people are victims of the police, we’ll simply blame them. After all, who will have sympathy for an alleged drunk driver?
Blame the victim. It’s not a novel approach. Usually it’s one that arises from abusive relationships. In any event, the Government has claimed that the review procedure is exempt from the application of the Charter. Unless, of course, you refuse to blow. In that case the adjudicator must resolve an issue of law, i.e. whether there was a lawful Approved Screening Device demand. If they conclude that the demand was unlawful because it did not comply with the Charter, then the applicant was entitled to refuse the demand.
So, Charter remedies are available if you refuse to provide an ASD sample, but not if you blow. Does anyone think this is fair? Should we not all be concerned that this slippery slope of devaluing our Charter Rights has gone way too far?
Do you see why BC is the land that justice forgot?