My son blew over .08, was given a 90 day suspension and the…

Thanks for the confirmation.

In all jurisdictions in Canada, the use of roadside screening devices and the subsequent suspension of driver's licenses remains lawful. Suspensions range from 3 to 90 days, and different provinces have different laws relating to the seizure/impounding of vehicles. BC's 30 impoundment is one of the longest in Canada, as compared to 7 days in Ontario under Provincial law.

Each provincial regulatory body responsible for motor vehicles and licensing has its own policies regarding license suspensions, driver improvement programs and programs such as the ignition interlock.

In BC, the provincial government has implemented the Responsible Driver Program which carries with it a hefty fee. There are those who support such programs and there are just as many critics, and those who look at these programs as nothing more than a provincial cash cow.

The dilemma is that licensing is governed by the Province, it is not an inherent right, and the Province can implement programs and fees as it sees fit, within reason. If citizens do not comply with the Province's policies, then there is little, if anything that can be done. Given the public views on drinking and driving, the Provinces are taking much stricter positions on the issue.

The BC government's position on this issue is clear. If you receive an immediate roadside suspension, then you must submit to their requirements their Driver Responsibility Program and Ignition Interlock in order to be eligible to get your license back. It is not a case of being able to challenge the evidence, as it is if one were charged criminally with impaired driving or driving while exceeding the legal limit.

In the case of roadside suspensions the Province takes the police officer's word at face value regarding the results on the roadside screening device. There is no trial, there is no challenge.

What you may be thinking of with regards to roadside suspensions being challenged, is where licenses are suspended for "racing" offenses in some jurisdictions, where the punishment is doled out in the form of a short suspension without the party being able to challenge whether their driving actions actually constituted "racing". This is different than a case of an individual obtaining one of three readings on a roadside screening device.

Unfortunately, there is no recourse for the Province's mandatory process and fees in this regard.

I hope this provides you with the information you were seeking.

Regards

Jim

I have researched and reviewed this decision and you are in fact correct regarding the decision. As I indicated, BC's immediate roadside suspension of 90 days and impound of 30 days is excessive in comparison to other Provinces.

Additionally, BC institutes additional provincial policy relating to the failing of the roadside, which is already covered by the Criminal Code of Canada, which other provinces do not do, and as such, furthers the appearance of an intentional "cash cow"

Justice Sigurdson did in fact declare invalid the IRP for blowing a fail only. He upheld the IRP for blowing a warn and for refusal to provide a sample. However, Justice Sigurdson delayed the effective date of his decision until June 30, 2012.

As such, the provision in the Act is still valid, until June 30, 2012, which allows the government time to revamp the Act so that a void is not left in its place when the provision is removed.

This means that the MVB is still able to implement its programs, and will continue to do so until told otherwise by the government based upon whatever the new legislation is. So, if an individual refuses to follow their policy, they will not reinstate their license. This could change come June. But until then, or the time that the government makes a determination, the license remains suspended.

Now, on further research, I found a number of lawyers in BC are actively challenging this legislation based upon Justice Sigurdson's decision, and some in fact have had successes with their challenges.

It would appear that there may be some merit in challenging the IRP in this case and given the costs related to the DRP, interlock and other related expenses, it would be well worth your while to locate a lawyer in your area who has dealt with these criminal Charter applications and obtain proper informed legal advice.

Again, I wish you the best of luck in this matter.

Hi There;

If you are satisfied with my response I would appreciate it if you would click "Accept".

If you require further information or clarification, I am happy to continue to correspond with you.

Regards

Jim