This week we had another significant decision from the BC Supreme Court concerning how Immediate Roadside Prohibition adjudicators are to assess evidence. In this case, the court determined an IRP adjudicator neglected to consider important evidence in rendering her decision. The evidence that the adjudicator failed to address in her reasons was a significant piece of evidence that called into question a police officer’s credibility. The adjudicator has been ordered to conduct another review.
The case was appealed to BC Supreme Court by Kyla Lee. It involved a client who applied for a review after receiving a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition. The decision took 13 months to arrive, and we were disappointed to see the adjudicator had not addressed in her decision one of Kyla’s key arguments concerning the officer’s credibility. Thankfully, the Court agreed with our view.
If we had not petitioned the court for a judicial review of the adjudicator’s decision, our client would be stuck with a knowing that one of our key arguments had not even been taken into consideration
It’s important to know how IRP adjudicators arrived at their decisions
Often in IRP review hearings, we find that it is difficult to determine whether adjudicators considered all the important evidence presented prior to making their decisions. Knowing whether all the evidence was considered is important. It allows us and our clients to follow the pathway an adjudicator took in making a decision to uphold or revoke a driving prohibition.
We do not believe adjudicators are intentionally ignoring arguments. But sometimes an adjudicator may mistake comments made on the side as the main thrust of our arguments without fully considering the other submissions we made. In this case, the argument Kyla made, if accepted, was significant enough to call into question the officer’s credibility.
It was unfortunate that our argument appears not to have been properly considered the first time it was presented. When important evidence that was the basis of the arguments has not been addressed by the adjudicator, you can’t say that the decision is properly grounded. If we had not petitioned the court for a judicial review of the adjudicator’s decision, our client would be stuck with a knowing that one of our key arguments had not even been taken into consideration at the original review hearing.
Costs follow the decision
Because of the 13 month delay to rendering a decision, the Court ordered that the Government pay costs pursuant to the Supreme Court Rules. We’re glad to see that the Courts are taking very seriously the failure of the RoadSafetyBC adjudicators to render decisions in a timely manner. The idea of the IRP scheme is a quick and somewhat dirty process that leads to a quick decision. In fact, the whole system was predicated on the idea that the issues would be resolved after 21 days. But here we see that, although we have only 7 days to file for review, and despite the fact that RoadSafetyBC has decreed that the hearings are to take place within 14 days, the adjudicators are sometimes taking years to render a decision.
Had the driver been charged with a criminal DUI, they would almost inevitably have their matter resolved earlier. It’s ridiculous. One aspect that the Government argued back in 2011 to claim that the IRP scheme was constitutionally valid was that, by necessity, it was an expedited process.
In any event, the Courts are starting to grant remedies for these delays. We’re glad to see it.
Judicial reviews are the only option after an unsuccessful IRP hearing
If you have lost at your IRP hearing, a judicial review like this successful example is your only option to lift your driving prohibition. If you think that the adjudicator failed to consider important evidence that your lawyer presented at the hearing, you may now have a remedy in BC Supreme Court.
At Acumen Law Corporation, we have a team of experienced IRP lawyers who have the expertise to identify and challenge cases where the adjudicator failed to consider important evidence presented at the IRP hearing.
Give us a call. Let’s discuss your case.