Blog

We are all on vacation at the moment, so we have not had a meeting to discuss the ruling. We will all be back in the office Wednesday, so you can expect a full update soon thereafter. One immediate difficulty that presents is that the Court has not limited the remedies that can be obtained […]

It may seem nebulous, but it was the conclusion of the Court that applying the Charter to immediately strike down the unlawful IRP law “may pose a danger” such that it is appropriate to delay the declaration of invalidity. What does this mean for our clients? The Court went on to say: In suspending this

The Court has rendered its decision concerning the implications of the 90-day IRP scheme having been found to violate the Charter of Rights. We are reviewing the decision. We will post updates when we have had an opportunity to consider the implications of the decision. You can read the decision here: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/17/2011BCSC1783.htm

We are waiting to see. If it comes at the end of the day, there will be little to do until next Wednesday when Government offices re-open. Check the Court website to see if it has been posted: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme_court/recent_judgments.aspx  

We expect a decision from the Court today concerning the application of the November 30th ruling in which the 90-day IRP/ARP law was held to be unconstitutional. What will it mean? We will tell you when we see it. One way or another, we doubt it will resolve the issue of outstanding IRPs or provide

A suggestion the Government seems to make by hammering one single statistic out of context is that recidivists are responsible for drunk driving deaths and therefore we should conclude that the IRP law stopped repeat drunk drivers. That would be the only way the decrease could be attributed to the IRP scheme. And bearing in

The Court heard submissions with respect to what should happen now that the 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme has been found unconstitutional. The Justice indicated that he understood that there is a desire for a prompt decision. The issues are complex, however, so we do not expect a decision until early January at the soonest.

Between September 20, 2010 and November 30, 2011, simply being in British Columbia was a high-stakes game of chance. If a police officer claimed that an unidentified witness claimed you drove, that was good enough to prove you were a driver. Time of driving didn’t matter, so long as there was no suggestion that you

The Globe and Mail reported Saturday that the Government expects to argue that 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibitions for refusal allegations should be untouched by the November 30th ruling. As far as we’re concerned it is the 90-day scheme that was found unconstitutional, with an immediate prohibition, vehicle impoundment, RDP and interlock, fines, etc.; without an

A hot topic this week has been whether the Government can rely on the unlawful legislative scheme if the police allege that the subject failed or refused to blow. In other words, if they don’t get a sample, can they then say that the search and seizure wasn’t unreasonable because there are no results to

Howard and the crew who argued Sivia, as well as the lawyers for the Government will appear in Court on Monday to make submissions on what should happen as a result of the finding that the IRP scheme is unconstitutional. Kyla wrote some of the draft arguments concerning the Charter issues. We were confident the

Firstly, we’d like to thank all of the people who have phoned and emailed us in the last couple of weeks. It’s been gratifying to know that so many people support the work we do, and that so many people are following our updates. It’s inspiring to see that people are aware of the threat