• Vancouver at night

Immediate Roadside Prohibitions (I.R.P.s)

The Charge

While drivers in British Columbia do continue to be investigated and prosecuted for impaired driving or “driving over .08” under the Criminal Code, these days the majority of BC drivers are processed under the Immediate Roadside Prohibition (I.R.P.) provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act.  In most cases, absent aggravating factors such as an accident, the presence of a child in the vehicle, symptoms of extreme intoxication or the allegation of other criminal acts, rather than proceeding with criminal charges, police will issue an immediate roadside driving prohibition for 90 days to those drivers who fail or refuse a roadside breathalyzer test.

While not a “criminal charge,” the effects of a 90-day immediate roadside prohibition can be devastating. Not being able to drive for 3 months can cause serious problems, especially for those who rely on their vehicle for employment. In addition to the driving prohibition, police will impound the vehicle for 30 days. The prohibited driver must pay a $500 fine plus the towing and 30-day storage costs. Once the 90-day prohibition is up, the driver must enroll in the Responsible Drivers Program (at a cost of approximately $1,000) and pay a $250 licence re-instatement fee. Many drivers, upon assessment, must pay for an install an ignition interlock device on their vehicle at a cost of approximately $1,500 per year. Additionally, ICBC will assess the Driver Risk Premium of at least $370 per year for at least 3 years.

The Investigation

The threshold for a police officer to demand a roadside breath sample is very low. The officer need not develop grounds to believe a driver is intoxicated; all the officer must do is suspect that the driver has some alcohol in their body. This suspicion can arise from as little as an admission of recent drinking, the observation of alcoholic beverage containers in the vehicle, or the smell of alcohol coming from the driver. The Motor Vehicle Act sets out that a driver must comply with a “lawful” breath demand, as set out by s. 254 of the Criminal Code. Where police obtain a “fail” result, they must inform the driver of their right to take a second test, using a second roadside breath testing device. The driver is entitled to the benefit of the lowest reading of the two tests. In the event that a driver refuses or fails a roadside screening test, police will tow the driver’s vehicle forthwith and will serve the driver with Notice of the Immediate Roadside Prohibition.

Recent Successes

R. vs. A.J. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charges: Fraud Over $5,000 Investigation.
Issue: Given that we were able to negotiate a civil settlement of this $13,000 insurance claim overpayment, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a settlement of the alleged fraudulent claim. We obtained a full Release, ending the matter in both the civil and criminal context. No further liability. No criminal charges.

R. vs. M.M. – New Westminster Police Investigation

Charge: Sexual Assault Investigation.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence for police to recommend that criminal charges be approved.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to guide our client through the police investigation, and to provide police with information on our client's behalf. Ultimately, police decided not to forward any charge to Crow. No charges approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.T. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charges: Fraud Under $5,000
Issue: Given our client's repayment of the alleged fraudulent health insurance benefits, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to settle the matter civilly on our client's behalf without any further civil or criminal proceeding. No charges were approved.

R. vs. A.S. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (domestic) Reduced to Peace Bond.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to continue with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through a course of rehabilitation and persuaded Crown to stay the assault charge and to allow our client to enter into a Peace Bond.

R. vs. G.V. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence for criminal charges to be approved.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide Crown counsel with additional information and persuaded Crown that it was not in the public interest to proceed with any criminal charges.

R. vs. M.H.E. – Abbotsford Provincial Court

Charges: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel regarding our client's circumstances and was able to persuade Crown that there was no public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. E.C. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Assault; Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we guided our client through, the nature of the sex assault itself and our client's true remorse, whether a jail sentence or house arrest were required.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to make a joint submission for a conditional discharge. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on our client's behalf, the trial judge granted our client the discharge. No jail or house arrest. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. N. O. – Courtenay Provincial Court

Charges: Assault Causing Bodily Harm x2; Assault x3.
Issues: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel which cast the complainant's credibility and reliability into doubt. The Crown made an adjournment application which Mr. Gauthier opposed. Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown to stay all of the criminal charges upon our client entering into a Peace Bond. No jail; No criminal record.

R. v. K.T. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charges: Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Given our client's repayment of the alleged fraudulent health insurance benefit claims, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able settle the matter on our client's behalf and received a Release from the insurer ending the matter without any further civil or criminal proceeding. No charges were approved.

R. vs. A.H. – Vancouver Supreme Court

Charges: Sentence Appeal - Forcible entry; Assault with a weapon.
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court would uphold our client's conditional discharge that was granted to our client by the Provincial Court.
Result: After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions on this sentence appeal, the Supreme Court justice agreed with Mr. Gautier and ruled that the sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances. The court dismissed the Crown's appeal. The conditional discharge was upheld.

R. v. J.F. – Dawson Creek Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: The credibility of the complainant's testimony during this three day trial.
Result: After vigorous cross examination of the complainant and another Crown eyewitness, Mr. Gauthier made submissions which were accepted by the trial judge. The court found our client to be not guilty and aquitted him of the charge. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.C. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Assault (x2).
Issue: In the circumstances of these historic charges and our client's rehabilitation, whether a community based sentence was appropriate.
Result: Notwithstanding that Crown counsel sought a 20 month jail sentence, the trial judge agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that, in the circumstances of our client's genuine remorse and rehabilitation, it was appropriate to  grant a conditional sentence of 21 months. No jail.

The Defence

The defence of an immediate roadside prohibition starts with filing an Application for Review. This application must be made at an ICBC RoadSafetyBC driver’s services centre within 7 days of being served with the I.R.P. When filing for a review, there is an application fee of $100 for a written review or $200 for an oral review. The burden of proof in a review hearing is on the applicant. When we are retained to represent drivers for IRP reviews, we will focus on the specific grounds of review that we have identified as being the most relevant to the case. The only grounds that the adjudicator will consider include:

  • That you were not the driver, or were not in care or control of the vehicle;
  • That you were not advised of your right to a second breathalyzer test;
  • That you requested a second test but the officer did not permit it;
  • That the second test was not performed on a second breathalyzer;
  • That the results of the breath test was not reliable – this is generally argued on the basis of breathalyzer calibration and testing records;
  • That you did not refuse or fail to comply with a lawful breath demand; or
  • That you had a reasonable excuse for refusing or failing to comply with a demand.

As stated, a driver has only seven days to file an application for review. We can help you prepare for your application for a review of your I.R.P. Once the application has been submitted, RoadSafetyBC will provide a copy of the officer’s Police Report to the Superintendent. This report is the “road map” to your case. We will analyze the issues outlined in the report along with your explanations of what happened. In this way, we will be able to provide you with our opinion as to your chances of success on the review. Our goal is to help keep you driving!

Start with a free consultation.

If you are being investigated by police or if you’ve been charged with a criminal or driving offence, don’t face the problem alone. Being accused of an offence is stressful. The prospects of a criminal record or jail sentence can be daunting. Even if you think there is no defence, we may be able to help. To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers, contact us now.