Since the new version of the IRP legislation came into effect June 15, 2012, we have had a number of successful IRP reviews. We’re happy for these clients. Unfortunately, however, what we have concluded is that the claim that there would be a more thorough review process was simply a lie. The process is actually worse, if you can believe it. The reasoning in the decisions reveals a coordinated attempt to thwart the intent of the Spencer decision and the first Sivia decision. This is unfortunate, because it means that we will be taking many of the review decisions to appeal at BC Supreme Court. And we will challenge the new legislation, seeking to strike it down.
As in the Spencer decision, the logic of the review decisions from the OSMV is often unfathomable. Evidence that shows that the samples are unreliable is rejected for ridiculous reasons. Any evidence, even bizarrely disconnected or even stupid evidence that could in some intangible way support the issuance of the prohibition is invariably identified as being proof that the samples are reliable.
The same type of reasoning that we see in Spencer is taking place in case after case. So we will be having the decisions reviewed in Supreme Court. We are filing Petitions for many of the review decisions that were unsuccessful.
Perhaps by virtue of the large number of Immediate Roadside Prohibitions that we review in our office, we have had successful IRP review decisions from the OSMV in the last two weeks. However, if the rules of evidence were properly followed we would expect a significant increase in the numbers of cases in which IRPs were lifted compared to the old IRP scheme. Instead the rate at which IRPs are lifted has dropped significantly. Innocence, although never a defence with IRPs, is even less likely to cause the prohibition to be lifted on review.