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. D.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (domestic). Reduced to Peace Bond.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we guided our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charges  upon our client entering into a Peace Bond with a 12 month "no contact" order. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.H. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (domestic). Reduced to Peace Bond.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we guided our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charges  upon our client entering into a Peace Bond with a 12 month "no contact" order. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there remained a public interest in continuing with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information about our client to Crown counsel which ultimately led to Crown entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.A. – Non Academic Misconduct Investigation

Charges: Sexual harassment.
Issue: Whether our client's behaviour amounted to "sexual harassment" as defined by the university's conduct policy.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to prepare our client for the University's hearing and, upon hearing all of the evidence, the University ruled that our client had not engaged in sexual harassment or any behaviour that contravened the institution's policies.

R. vs. Y.Z. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Attempted Murder (reduced to assault with a weapon). Issue: Given the circumstances of the event and given our client's mental health condition, whether our client truly had the intention to kill the complainant. Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide medical/psychological information to Crown counsel and, ultimately, was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser offence of assault with a weapon and to make a joint recommendation to the court for a conditional discharge, rather than the lengthy jail sentence they were originally seeking.  After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court granted our client the discharge. No criminal conviction. No jail.

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

Charges: Assault x2 (Reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given the potential for self-defence in this case, whether it was appropriate for the criminal prosecution to continue.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel which resulted in Crown's decision to proceed with a Peace Bond rather than the criminal charges. No criminal record.

R. v. G.K. – Fort St. John Provincial Court

Charge: Theft/ Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether Crown could prove the alleged $300,000 offence and, given the rehabilitative steps that we were able to guide our client through, whether a jail sentence was necessary.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel that they could only prove that our client was responsible for a $74,000 theft. Further, despite the breach of trust, in this case, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to seek a conditional sentence, rather than jail. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the court sentenced our client to a 2 year conditional sentence. No jail.

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.
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