If you just received a Notice to Refer to Remedial Programs from the OSMV branch of the BC Ministry of Justice, then read this carefully.
NOTICE UPDATED FEBRUARY 2015:
Since this blog post was originally published there have been significant changes to the procedure when you receive a Notice to Refer to Remedial Programs.
Please visit Remedial Programs Reconsideration for an updated explanation of the steps necessary to challenge a Notice to Refer to Remedial Programs.
The notice is telling you that you have 21 days from the date on the TOP LEFT of the letter to respond to explain why you should not have to go through the RDP (Responsible Driver Program) and then risk being forced to get an Interlock in your car.
This is the new review process. The letter may say that the Intake Agent (named as the author of the letter) apologizes for the delay in the referral. If you’re new to this whole IRP/ADP thing, you can go back on our blog and you’ll see that we’re the reason for the delay. We forced them to change the process.
What you need to know now is that the clock is ticking. Chances are that you didn’t get the letter until at least 5 days from when it was dated, and you need to get those submissions completed and formally submitted within 21 days before the axe falls.
As far as we’re concerned, if you have a good driving record with no history of drinking and driving, i.e. no previous 24-hour prohibitions, etc., then you shouldn’t even have this letter. But that’s not what’s happening. The government created an internal policy that says a 90-day IRP or ADP is evidence that you need some remediation. And that’s why you’ve got this letter.
We know what you’re thinking. One 90-day IRP or ADP doesn’t make the case that you should be forced to go through some alcohol program and get an interlock. We agree. But now is not the time to get angry. Your 21 days are counting down, and right now you need to think about preparing your submissions.
What should be in the submissions?
We forced the Government to release their policy manual on reconsideration of referrals to remedial programs. You can find the link to it here.
The Government lists what they call “Threshold Factors” and “Compliance Factors.” As far as we can see, the “Threshold Factors” seems to be simply whether you received a DUI of any sort, such as a 90-day IRP.
So-called “Compliance Factors” include economic impact (of the RDP and interlock) but the examples have been blocked out, redacted and sanitized because they are top secret. It seem that the Government thinks you shouldn’t know what economic impacts might be relevant. They expect you to guess. And they don’t want tax-payers to know about the decision-making process in the Government.
They list more factors, each with the examples redacted so you don’t learn about this Government secret.
The headings are:
Economic impact, such as (redacted examples)
Impact on community: (redacted examples)
Infeasibility to install the device: (redacted and this shouldn’t be a consideration in any event in their new process)
Whether driving prohibition occurred in a commercial vehicle – this may be important in determining appropriate variance; (what the hell does this mean?)
Access issues: (examples redacted but the heading suggests that a physical handicap might help your case)
Safety of driver: (if you need to walk home in the bitter cold over a mountain range due to having the RDP or the RDP would increase the likelihood that you become a victim of an assault)
Medical restrictions of driver: (again examples redacted and again this appears inappropriate at this stage seeing as the RDP is supposedly the only thing being considered by the tribunal)
Of course, our editorial comments are in the parenthesis.
From our view this is really poorly thought out. And it’s shocking to us that the Government would be so arrogant as to redact this information which is the property of the people of British Columbia. As we read it this list seems designed to obscure any clear process and allow the tribunal to apply any standard they wish by claiming that it’s a proper exercise of their discretion. The Government website is also lacking information.
Of course we hope that we’re wrong about our view of things. Despite what we see in this policy manual, we must operate under the assumption that the Government is approaching this in good faith and that the submissions made for each individual will be carefully considered without a presumption that they are to be forced through the so-called remedial programs. The numbers might make this all clear when we get the information in future FOI requests.
Still, it seems that the Government has decided to disregard the strong legal arguments that we made concerning their previous Remedial scheme. It seems that one 90-day driving prohibition is again the trigger of a referral to the remedial programs, even if your driving record is otherwise spotless.
This to us is wrong, contrary to the Motor Vehicle Act and contrary to the description of the law that was presented to the legislators who voted in these provisions. And so once again we are planning to challenge this in court.
What we’re doing about this:
If you’ve received a Notice to Refer to Remedial Programs call us. We’re willing to consider taking your case. Our threshold factor is whether you have only the one IRP or ADP driving prohibition. If you have no history of drinking and driving, i.e., simply the one DUI allegation, then we may be able to help you.