You’ve just been handed a 90-day IRP (Immediate Roadside Prohibition). For the next three months you can’t drive, but you need your car to get to work. Not only do you get fined, but you now are facing loss of income because your job requires you to be mobile. Worse, you might not get that big promotion because of loss of reputation. Nightmare scenario: you could even be fired.
An IRP suspension can do even more than that — it can hurt your entire life. If you have children who participate in extracurriculars outside of school, if you’re the sole member of your family with a driver’s licence, or you need a car to fulfill community commitments, a 90-day prohibition can do irreparable harm to your life and the life of those around you.
There are provisions under the law to get a stay on an IRP, which gives you time to appeal, but they are very difficult to get.
Arguing for a stay on 90-day IRP
If the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles does not grant you a stay, it’s an uphill battle to get one. The court does not usually uphold your request unless you are going to lose your job because of an IRP. Loss of income or reputation is not going to matter.
But there is hope. There are circumstances where a stay might be granted. In a recent case, it was argued a petitioner was going to suffer loss of income and reputation because of a 90-day IRP suspension.
The petitioner had to stop taking on clients at work because his inability to drive meant he was unable to assist his clients. Because of the nature of his work, he would experience loss of income for months into the future due to the IRP.
The Superintendent counter argued the prohibition needs to cause a total loss of employment and that an inconvenience doesn’t constitute an irreparable harm. Loss of income is more than an inconvenience and the judge found the applicant already suffered irreparable harm. Further, the judge said total loss of employment is not necessary to demonstrate this kind of harm.
The judge also factored in upcoming cases, involving Acumen lawyer Kyla Lee which will challenge the constitutionality of the existing IRP legislation.
Irreparable harm and a balance of convenience are major factors in getting a stay on IRPs
The test for interim relief is set out in RJR — MacDonald Inc. v Canada (Attorney General), a Supreme Court of Canada decision where tobacco company asked for a stay on modifying advertisements until their appeal of new laws was decided. Here, the court established three tests to grant a stay:
(i) There is a serious constitutional issue to be determined.
(ii) Compliance with the new regulations will cause irreparable harm.
(iii) The balance of convenience, taking into account the public interest, favours retaining the status quo until this court has disposed of the legal issues.
What does this look like? In R. v. Oughtred, one individual successfully argued for a stay of an IRP for three petitioners contesting driving prohibitions. One of the petitioners needed to drive for work. It was his sole source of income. He was responsible for forty-five employees, who relied on his ability to drive 20 different vehicles between locations throughout Vancouver Island, the Lower Mainland and the Interior. The business owner faced extreme loss of income for himself and for his employees.
The judge found the punishments for the petitioners were “impractical,” and granted a stay of 120 days with the option to extend if the court had not yet decided the case.
Challenging an IRP can be a long and engaged process. At Acumen Law, our lawyers can help you argue your case, give us a call at 604-685-8889 for a free consultation.