You are here: / / Immediate Roadside Prohibitions
  • 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. C.Y. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charges: Assault with a weapon ( 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 proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client to resolve this matter with a s. 810 Recognizance (Peace Bond) for a period of 12 months. Stay of proceedings on the criminal charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. F.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Theft and Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether the pre-charge delay of 3.5 years would reduce the sentence in this $215,000 employee fraud case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the trial judge and Crown counsel that there was merit to our application for a judicial stay of proceedings based on our client's inability to properly defend the charges due to a delay of about 4 years in getting the charges approved. Notwithstanding this breach of trust, Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a plea arrangement in which our client received a 2 year conditional sentence order with a 10 pm curfew for 12 months. No monies were ordered to be repaid. No jail.

R. vs. M.P. – Abbotsford Police Investigation

Charges: Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosucution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown and to ultimately persuade Crown counsel to not approve any charge in this case. No charge approves. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.H. – Abbotsford Provincial Court

Charge: Failing to stop at an accident resulting in bodily harm.
Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence, our client's background and his extreme remorse, whether a jail sentence was warranted.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was ble to direct our client through a course of psychological counselling and was able to persuade Crown counsel to agree to a non-custodial sentence. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a 12 month conditional sentence. No jail.

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

Charges: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether Crown counsel had sufficient evidence to meet the charge approval standard.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that important evidence would be missing from a cenrtal witness and to not approve any charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.H. – Abbotsford Provincial Court

Charges: Breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing an indictable offence, wearing a mask for the purpose of committing an indictable offence, breach of release order.
Issue: Whether it would be consistent with the principles of sentencing for our client to serve his sentence in the community.
Result: Mr. Johnston provided Crown counsel with information which, along with our client's rehabilitative progress and good compliance with strict bail conditions, persuaded the Crown to seek a jail sentence of under two years for his role in a violent "home invasion". After hearing Mr. Johnston's submissions, the court agreed it would not be inconsistent with the principles of sentencing for our client to serve his sentence in the community instead of in custody. This was a significant result for our client as home invasion convictions typically result in lengthy jail sentences served in federal prison. No further time in custody.

R. vs. G.T. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnston provided Crown counsel with information which, along with our client’s progress with counselling, persuaded the Crown to gradually relax our client’s bail conditions and ultimately direct a stay of proceedings on the charge. No further prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Impaired Driving.
Issue: Whether Crown counsel could prove the impaired driving offence in light of evidence brought forward by Mr. Gauthier which suggested that our client did not voluntarily consume the drug that may have contributed to the the manner of his driving and the ensuing accident.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of dangerous operation and, rather than being convicted of impaired driving, our client was granted a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. D.H.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault causing bodily harm; mischief to property under $5000.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction on the assault causing bodily harm charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on the assault causing bodily harm charge. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted our client a conditional discharge and ordered restitution in relation to the smart phone that was damaged. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. W.J.M. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Upon presenting Crown counsel with a psychological report regarding our client's low risk to commit a similar act, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown to not approve any criminal charges whatsoever. No prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.A. – Vancouver Provincial Court (DCC)

Charges: Assault; Assault Peace Officer (x2).
Issue: Given the circumstances of our client being severely intoxicated and acting out f character, whether a criminal conviction was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide Crown counsel with our client's background information resulting in a joint recommendation to the Court for a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

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

Charges: Aggravated Assault; Breach of Probation.
Issue: Given the context of the offences and our client's rehabilitative efforts, whether a jail sentence was appropriate.>br> Result: Mr. Johnston informed Crown counsel of the significant rehabilitative progress our client had made since the offence dates and persuaded Crown to not pursue the 16 month  jail sentence they had been seeking. Crown agreed to proceed on the less serious charge of assault causing bodily harm and to stay the remaining charges. After hearing Mr. Johnston's submissions, the court granted our client a one year conditional sentence sentence and two years of probation. This was a particularly positive outcome for our client, who had a prior conviction for a similar offence. No jail.
View All

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.

Connect