August 12, 2013 The BC Supreme Court released a decision in an IRP appeal hearing today, ruling that the Superintendent’s Report on ASDs is inadmissible in IRP review hearings.
The Motor Vehicle Act specifically delineates what constitutes admissible evidence in IRP review hearings. The Motor Vehicle Act does not permit the delegate of the Superintendent, who is the adjudicator in IRP review hearings, to rely on evidence submitted by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.
In speaking of the admissibility of the Report, the Court held:
[27] In s. 215.49, however, the legislature established a different evidentiary regime concerning the matters which the Superintendent must consider. Pursuant to s. 215.49(1), the Superintendent’s considerations are limited to the statements or evidence submitted by the applicant, the report of the peace officer, and other relevant documents and information forwarded by the peace officer.
[28] The legislative scheme in relation to roadside suspensions does not countenance the introduction of other information. In these circumstances, the delegate could not rely on the ASD Report in reviewing the petitioner’s driving prohibition. On this ground alone, the prohibition must be quashed
Acumen Law Corporation Lawyer, Kyla Lee, argued the original IRP review hearing and the Appeal of the delegate’s decision in BC Supreme Court.
If you were unsuccessful appealing your IRP to the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and the delegate specifically referred to the Superintendent’s Report on Approved Screening Devices (Superintendent’s Report on ASDs) we believe that you should be entitled to a re-hearing based on this BC Supreme Court decision.
We will provide a more detailed discussion of the implications of this decision here on our blog.