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. v. L.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Mischief Over $5000.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove the value of damage alleged to have been caused by our client.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that because it could not accurately prove the value of damage, and that our client had taken appropriate steps of self-rehabilitation,  Crown elected to not approve any charges. No criminal record.

R. v. H.K. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution in this "road rage" case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel about our client's personal circumstances and the circumstances of the incident which resulted in Crown staying the charge after our client completed Alternative Measures. No criminal record.

R. v. J.S. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Uttering Threats (x3).
Issue: Whether or not our client was entitled to be sentenced to a conditional discharge rather than being convicted of this offence.
Result: Upon hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions on our client's behalf, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge rather than entering a conviction. No criminal record.

R. v. S.G. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; Mischief. Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps that we guided our client through and advocating on her behalf that there was a reasonable self defence issue, whether there was a substantial likelihood of securing a conviction.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel that there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction. Ultimately Crown entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal conviction. No criminal record.

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

Charges: B&E; Assault; Distribute Intimate Images.
Issue: Whether the Crown could comply with a defence disclosure request and possibly face a Charter application to have charges stayed due to unreasonable delay.
Result: On the eve of the trial, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to allow our client to plead guilty to the least serious charge, assault by slapping. Crown nonetheless sought a conviction and probation, but after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. v. C.B.S. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charges: B&E; Assault; Distribute Intimate Images.
Issue: Whether the Crown could comply with a defence disclosure request and possibly face a Charter application to have charges stayed due to unreasonable delay.
Result: On the eve of the trial, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to allow our client to plead guilty to the least serious charge, assault by slapping. Crown nonetheless sought a conviction and probation, but after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. v. V.L. – Vancouver Provincial Youth 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 criminal charges.
Result: After providing Crown counsel with our client's positive psychological counselling report, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. C.J.X. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charges:  Assault with a Weapon.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with criminal charges.
Result: After providing Crown counsel with our client's  positive psychological counselling report, Mr. Gauthier  was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. B.E. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (domestic) x2.
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 provide information to Crown counsel on our client's behalf and ultimately persuaded Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. A.S. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: B & E, Fraud over $5000, Motor vehicle theft; Identity theft, Driving while prohibited (x2).
Issue: Given our client’s personal circumstances and rehabilitative efforts, what would be the appropriate sentence.
Result:  Mr. Johnston was able to persuade Crown to make a joint submission for time-served, followed by a period of probation. The Crown directed stays of proceedings on several charges.  After hearing Mr. Johnston's submissions on our client's behalf, the sentencing judge noted that he would have ordinarily imposed a lengthy jail sentence for an accused in our client's position, but he accepted the joint submission. No further jail.

R. v. M.A.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Possession of fentanyl and carfentanil for the purposes of trafficking.

Issue: Given the information Mr. Johnston provided to Crown counsel regarding our client’s personal circumstances and the circumstances of the alleged offence, whether it was appropriate to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Johnston was able to persuade the Crown that there were issues with respect to the Crown's evidence such that it was unlikely our client would be convicted at trial, and that there was insufficient public interest in continuing to prosecute our client in any case. Given this informaton, the Crown directed a stay of proceedings on the charge. No criminal record.

R. v. S.B. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Carrying a Concealed Weapon.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Johnston was able to provide to Crown counsel regarding the circumstances of the incident and our client's background, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnston persuaded Crown counsel that there was insufficient public interest, leading Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
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