If you have received an immediate roadside prohibition (“IRP”) and you live in Vernon BC or anywhere else in the Okanagan call criminal defense lawyer Julian van der Walle immediately.

Immediate Roadside Prohibitions

In September 2010, the provincial government created the Immediate Roadside Prohibition IRP regime. Now, when a person blows a “fail” into a roadside screening device or if they refuse to blow, they will receive an automatic 90 day driving prohibition.

Julian believes these laws are unfair because they impose serious penalties on people even if the police officer violated their constitutional rights to get the breath sample.

Defences are more limited for IRP’s than criminal impaired charges. However, Julian has attained regular success in getting Immediate Roadside Prohibitions revoked.

See below for a sample of these cases Julian has fought:

Superintendent v. S.(D.) 2016

Client was served with a 90 day driving prohibition on the basis that she had failed without reasonable excuse to provide a sample of her breath into a roadside device. Mr. van der Walle obtained a letter from the client’s doctor evincing that the client suffered from a condition that reduced her lung capacity. After reviewing the argument made by Mr. van der Walle, the adjudicator was satisfied that the client had a reasonable excuse for failing to provide the sample. The driving prohibition was revoked. Government paid all towing and storage costs.

 

Superintendent v. K.(H.) 2016

Client was alleged to have refused to provide a sample of her breath. After making an abrupt turn and hitting a snowbank, a police officer rushed her car with his pistol drawn and violently pulled her from the vehicle and put her under arrest. Mr. van der Walle successfully argued that the unlawful and completely unnecessary conduct of the officer resulted in the client having a reasonable excuse for not complying with the breath demand. Client got her licence back and had all of her towing and storage costs paid by the government.

 

[/column]

Superintendent v. B.(C.) 2015

Client left a bar, hopped in his vehicle and began pulling out of the parking lot. He immediately saw a police cruiser and re-parked his car. Unfortunately the officer was not forgiving and demanded that the client provide a sample of his breath into a roadside screening device. After many attempts of what the officer described as “goofing around” the client was unable to provide a proper sample and was given a 90 day prohibition on the basis that he intentionally failed to provide a sample of his breath. After reviewing Mr. van der Walle’s argument, the adjudicator agreed that it could not be proven that the client intentionally failed to provide the sample, as opposed to merely being unable to do so because of a cold or flu. Client got his licence back on New Year’s Eve with all towing and storage costs paid by the government.

Superintendent v. F.(S.) 2015

Client was driving his sports car without the traction control turned on and as a result caused a serious collision with a large motor-home. When the police arrived they smelled an odour of alcohol on client’s breath and made a demand upon him to provide a sample of his breath. The client blew a fail on a device that the police claimed was calibrated correctly. After receiving submissions from Mr. van der Walle, the adjudicator agreed that the evidence was not sufficient to establish the client truly had a fail level of alcohol in his system, notwithstanding that there was no evidence that the device was faulty or improperly calibrated. Client got his licence back immediately.

 

Superintendent v. H.(E.) 2015

Client allegedly refused to provide a sample of his breath when demanded by a police officer. After hearing submissions from Mr. van der Walle the adjudicator agreed that the client had changed his mind and agreed to provide a sample at a time that would not have seriously inconvenienced the police officer. As a result, as a matter of law, there was no refusal because of the change of mind. Client got license back and the government paid all storage and towing costs of the vehicle.

Superintendent v. H.(T.) 2015

Client blew a “fail” twice. Client had crashed his truck into a ditch on a private property. After hearing submissions from Mr. van der Walle the adjudicator agreed that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the client had driven on a public roadway after consuming alcohol. As a result he could not be a “driver” within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act. Client got licence back and the government paid all storage and towing costs of the vehicle.

 

Superintendent v. L.(R.) 2015

Client blew a fail twice each on a different machine. After reviewing submissions made by Mr. van der Walle the adjudicator agreed that on the whole of the evidence he could not be satisfied that the breath sample results were reliable. Prohibition revoked and client started driving again the same day the adjudicator made the decision. All storage and towing costs paid by the government.

Superintendent v. L.(M.) 2015

This was client’s second IRP in three months. We were successful in getting the first prohibition revoked. On this one Mr. van der Walle provided written submissions that the officer had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the client was the “driver” within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act. The adjudicator agreed and the client got his licence back again. Once again, the government paid all storage and towing costs.

 

Superintendent v. S.(J.) 2014

Client blew a fail into a roadside device. After reviewing submissions from Mr. van der Walle the adjudicator ruled that he was not satisfied that the fail result was reliable because of the potential presence of mouth alcohol which could have produced an artificially high result. Driving prohibition revoked and towing and storage costs paid by the government.

Superintendent v. V.(D.) 2014

Client blew a “fail” into one handheld breathalyser and declined to provide a second sample. After reviewing submissions provided by Mr. van der Walle, the adjudicator was not satisfied that the fail result was reliable because of the chance that recent consumption of alcohol could have produced a falsely high reading. Driving prohibition revoked and towing and storage costs paid by the government.

 

Superintendent v. D.(P.) 2014

The client refused to blow after a police officer followed him into a strip club because a concerned citizen had reported the client for erratic driving. The officer arrested the client and made a demand that he blow into a handheld breathalyser. After reviewing written submissions from Mr. van der Walle the adjudicator decided that the officer had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the breath demand was lawful. Driving prohibition revoked and the government paid all towing and storage costs.

Superintendent v. L.(M.) 2014

Client blew a “fail” reading on two different devices. Both blows had occurred only about 30-45 seconds after the client finished taking a “puff” or a “drag” of his cigarette. After hearing submissions from Mr. van der Walle the adjudicator ruled that he could not be satisfied that the blow results were reliable on the basis that smoking soon before blowing can artificially skew the results. Driving prohibition revoked and storage and towing costs paid by the government.

 

Superintendent v. T.(A.) 2014

Client blew a “fail” reading on two different devices. After reviewing the written submissions provided by Mr. van der Walle, the adjudicator agreed that there were serious doubts about the accuracy and reliability of the test results. The prohibition was revoked and the government paid the client’s storage and towing costs.

Superintendent v. B.(A.) 2014

Client received a 90 day IRP on the basis that he was in “care and control” of his vehicle as he sat in the driver seat waiting for his friend to pick him up from the bar. Mr. van der Walle filed written submissions arguing that the client was not in care and control of the vehicle merely because he sat in the driver’s seat. Adjudicator agrees. IRP revoked and vehicle returned immediately. All towing and storage costs paid by the government.

 

Superintendent v. G.(H.) 2014

Client received a 90 day IRP on the basis of blowing a fail reading twice, each time on a different roadside device. After reviewing the written argument filed by Mr. van der Walle the adjudicator was not satisfied that a different machine was used for the second test. IRP revoked and vehicle returned immediately. All towing and storage costs paid by the government.

Superintendent v. O.(D.) 2014

Client received a 90 day IRP on the basis of blowing a fail reading twice. After reviewing the written argument filed by Mr. van der Walle the adjudicator was not satisfied that the documents provided by the police officer were properly sworn. IRP revoked and vehicle returned immediately. All towing and storage costs paid by the government.

 

Superintendent v. H.(B.) 2014

Client received a 90 day IRP on the basis that he refused to provide a breath sample. After reviewing the written argument filed by Mr. van der Walle the adjudicator was not satisfied that the client was the driver of the vehicle. IRP revoked and vehicle returned immediately. All towing and storage costs paid by the government.

Superintendent v. M.(J.) 2014

Client received a 90 day IRP on the basis of blowing a fail reading twice. After reviewing the written argument filed by Mr. van der Walle the adjudicator was not satisfied that the results of the devices were reliable because the officer did not provide evidence that the devices were operating within the proper temperature range. IRP revoked and vehicle returned immediately. All towing and storage costs paid by the government.

 

Superintendent v. M.(E.) 2013

Client received a 90 day IRP on the basis that he willfully failed to provide a breath sample. After reviewing the written argument filed by Mr. van der Walle the adjudicator concluded that he could not be satisfied that client had willfully failed to provide a sample. IRP revoked and vehicle returned immediately. All towing and storage costs paid by the government.