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. M.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in  the public interest continue with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed with a Peace Bond rather than the criminal assault charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.Q. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Mischief to Property.
Issue: After Mr. Gauthier was able to facilitate making restitution on our client's belf, whether it was in the public interest top proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Results: Crown counsel accepted Mr. Gauthier's representations and concluded the matter by entering a stay of proceedings. no criminal record.

R. vs. A.V. – Duncan Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Johnston was able to provide to Crown counsel about our client's circumstances and the significant rehabilitation steps we were able to guide him through, whether it remained in the public interest to continue with the prosecution.
Result: Crown counsel accepted Mr. Johnston's representations and concluded the matter by entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.J. – Chilliwack Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether a criminal prosecution was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed pursuant to a s. 810 Peace Bond, and to enter a stay of proceedings on the criminal charge. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court placed our client on the Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. v. Q.C. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge: Insurance fraud over $5000 investigation.
Issue: Given our client's rehabilitation and repayment of disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the Insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charhges were forwarded. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.K. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; assault with a weapon; breach of undertaking (x2); attempting to take weapon from police.
Issue: Whether our client's personal circumstances and positive rehabilitative steps made him a good candidate for a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed only on the common assault charge and to stay proceedings on the remaining four criminal charges. After hearing Mr. Mines'submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge and placed him on probation for 12 months. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. A.S. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Fraud Over $5,000 (x4); Theft Over $5,000 (x4).
Issue: Given that full restitution was made and that our client had taken significant steps toward self-rehabilitation, whether jail was the appropriate sentence for this $240,000 employee fraud.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to facilitate the restitution payment and provided medical information to Crown counsel on our client's behalf. Ultimately Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to  jointly  recommend a non-custodial sentence. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, our client was granted a 2 year less a day conditional senntence.. No jail.

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

Charges: Assault Causing Bodily Harm (reduced to assault).
Issue: Whether the caselaw supported our client receiving a conditional discharge for this domestic assault case in which the coplainant sustained a significant injury.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide Crown counsel with information about our client and a number of case authorities which resulted in Crown agreeing to proceed on assault simpliciter  and to make a joint recommendation for a conditional discharge, which was accepted by the court.

R. vs. D.T. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault causing bodily harm.
Issue: Given the parallel civil claim and the issue of  self defence, whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information about our client's circumstances and the circumstances of the incident which caused Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. P.G. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; Assault by Choking.
Issue: Whether our client was acting in self defence and whether he used excessive force.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to guide our client through a course of self rehabilitation and to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser charge of simple assault. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge and declined to make the restitution order sought by the complainant. No criminal conviction.

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

Charges: Fraud Over $5,000 Investigation.
Issue: Given that we were able to negotiate a civil settlement of this $6,000 insurance claim overpayment, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to negotiate a settlement of the alleged fraudulent claim. We obtained a full Release, ending the matter. No further liability. No criminal charges were forwarded.

R. vs. S.R. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual assault; assault.
Issue: Whether the trial judge would allow Mr. Mines' application to cross examine the complainant on prior records (text messages) that impacted her credibility and reliability.
Result: The trial judge allowed our application in part, and ruled that the remaining issues could be renewed at at further point in the trial. Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings after the conclusion of our application. No further prosection. No jail. 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