Phone: 604-558-8778
Toll Free: 1-855-558-8778

drunk driving Tag

IRP charges

Fighting an IRP

Since September 20, 2010, the Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) regime largely replaced the judicial process in the field of drinking and driving offences. In another words, most drinking and driving cases do not involve appearing in Court. In British Columbia, the police issue an IRP and submit a report to the Superintendent of the Motor Vehicles. There are seven days to dispute the IRP. The review process takes place in written or oral format before an adjudicator in Victoria.

The penalties are severe and swift. Those who the police report blew a “fail” or “refuse to blow” will immediately lose their driver’s licences for 90 days. In addition, the vehicle they were driving is impounded for 30 days. There are also significant requirements for participation and completion of the Responsible Drivers Program and the Interlock Ignition Program. There are also significant financial consequences including the towing and storage fees for the impounded vehicle and the costs of required programs. An IRP also means a serious alcohol related offence on one’s record which can carry lasting negative consequences.

The area of drinking and driving is very specialized and the issues are technical and can be quite complicated. What would be relevant in a criminal case may be very different than what is important on an IRP review.    

Filkow Law is a leading authority and expert on IRPs  and all drinking and driving offences. This area of the law is highly specialized. If you receive an IRP or other drinking and driving offence, please contact 604-558-8778 for legal assistance.

0

Alcohol related offences highest during holidays

December is a busy time of year for all of us. Friends and families come together, enjoy good company, food and wine…and maybe beer…and vodka… and a long drive home. It is no surprise that impaired driving rates are highest in December. In fact, there were an estimated 24,000 cars stopped at BC police check stops last Friday night alone. Inevitably, your chance of receiving an Immediate Roadside Prohibition or being charged with a driving offence is exponentially higher during the holiday season.

An Immediate Roadside Prohibition (commonly referred to as an “IRP”) is a driving prohibition issued under the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act to drivers found to have a blood alcohol concentration of 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood (50 mg% or 0.05 BAC) and above. These prohibitions begin immediately, and can vary in length from 3 days (if you blow a WARN) to 90 days (if you blow a FAIL or refuse to provide a breath sample).

If you receive a 90 day prohibition, your vehicle will also be impounded for 30 days, and you will be responsible for the costs associated with towing and storage. This is accompanied by a $500 fine, a $250.00 license reinstatement fee, and a referral to the Responsible Driver Program, which costs over $800. Another possible consequence of an IRP is a referral to the Ignition Interlock Program, which will cost you over $1000, plus maintenance fees.

What many people don’t know about Immediate Roadside Prohibitions is that you have 7 days to dispute them. If you do not respond within 7 days, your IRP will be confirmed, it will remain on your driving record, and you can look forward to paying all those fees listed above! Not exactly the type of gifts you had in mind this holiday season! It is very easy to get caught up in all the holiday madness and forget this crucial deadline.

If you or someone you know have received an Immediate Roadside Prohibition or have been charged with a driving offence, contact Filkow Law at 604-558-8778 for proper legal assistance. Filkow Law is a leading BC law firm experienced dealing with drinking and driving offences.

4

British Columbia’s Drinking and Driving Laws

This is the second part of my paper on British Columbia’s Drinking and Driving laws. Part one appeared in the last issue of The Verdict (Fall 2013), Trial Lawyers Association of BC.

The Government appears to find it politically advantageous to proclaim that the IRP legislation represents the “strictest impaired driving laws around.” This claim simply isn’t true, at least as a general proposition. Those who have financial resources and don’t depend on driving for their employment are far less penalized by the IRP regime than they would be under the Criminal Code. They pay for the fines and the programs imposed, and resume driving after three months. It is lower income, rural and/or younger drivers who are more likely to be harshly affected – often for years because they cannot afford to pay for the mandatory post-prohibition programs. Those whose employment requires being able to drive may also suffer inordinately, as they lose their jobs and they and their families suffer serious corollary effects from the loss of income.
The very real and substantial penalties that often flow from the IRP regime would be acceptable if the review process were fair. But it is not. There is virtually no means of challenging the word of the officer regarding what took place at the roadside, and the lack of checks and balances in turn will almost inevitably lead to an arrogant undesirable police culture.
The cynical culture of the IRP regime should not be allowed to perpetuate. There is some hope that the constitutional challenge in Sivia will receive a more comprehensive resolution from the Court of Appeal. In the meantime, we must fight for just outcomes and a fairer regime as best we can with the resources at our disposal.

Also see the original paper The Unsettling Unfairness of the IRP Regime.

1