90 Day Driving Prohibitions

There are a number of 90-day driving prohibitions that can be issued under the Motor Vehicle Act in British Columbia. 90-day driving prohibitions can be issues as an Administrative Driving Prohibition ("ADP") or an Immediate Roadside Prohibition ("IRP") in relation to driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

ADPs and IRPs may be challenged within 7 days of the date of service by the police. There are no exceptions to the 7 day limitation period for filing for a review so a motorist who wishes to challenge the imposition of one of these prohibitions must act quickly to file a dispute or hire a lawyer. In addition to a 90-day prohibition from driving, an IRP or ADP usually also involves a fine, car impoundment and the requirement to complete the Responsible Driver’s Program or have an Interlock Ignition Device installed in their vehicle.

Case Results

R. v. M.Z. [2016]
Client facing an Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) as a result of a police check in his own driveway. IRP challenged with written review and included lengthy affidavit evidence from client challenging the facts alleged by the police officer. Adjudicator found insufficient evidence to support IRP and driving prohibition revoked – LICENSE BACK TO CLIENT AND VEHICLE RELEASED FROM IMPOUND LOT.

DRIVING PROHIBITION REVOKED.

R. v. C.K. [2016]
Client facing 90 days Immediate Roadside Driving Prohibition. Mr. Shapray retained for hearing which resulted in the Driving Prohibition being revoked as there were issues with the police documents – NO DRIVING PROHIBITION or REMEDIAL PROGRAMS.

NO DRIVING PROHIBITION or REMEDIAL PROGRAMS

R. v. B.B. [2015]
Client charged with Driving While Prohibited and facing automatic minimum jail sentence as a result of his poor driving record including a previous conviction for Driving While Prohibited. Mr. Shapray entered into negotiations prior to trial date and was able to resolve matter with NO JAIL TIME and a plea to the lesser offence of driving without a license.

NO JAIL TIME and PLEA TO LESSER OFFENCE.

R. v. B.M. [2014]
Client received a 90 day driving prohibition (IRP) after a police check of his vehicle revealed him to be sitting in the driver's seat in a parked truck. Mr. Shapray prepared detailed written submissions and sworn affidavits alleging that the client was using his vehicle to sleep in and that he was not in legal "care and control" and thus the driving prohibition should be revoked. Mr. Shapray's submissions on behalf of the driver were accepted and the driving prohibition was thrown out and client's car was released from impound.

DRIVING PROHIBITION THROWN OUT,

R. v. T.C. [2015]
Client charged with Driving While Prohibited and Driving While Disqualified under the Criminal Code. Client facing automatic minimum jail sentence and a 1 year driving prohibition as a result of his poor driving record including a previous conviction for Driving While Prohibited. Mr. Shapray entered into negotiations prior to trial date and was able to resolve matter with NO JAIL TIME and a plea to the lesser offence of driving without a license.

NO JAIL TIME and PLEA TO LESSER OFFENCE.

R. v. D.D. [2013]
90-Day driving prohibition involving allegation of refusal to provide a breath sample at the roadside. Factual challenge to the IRP with affidavits filed and medical letter resulting in driving prohibition being revoked.

DRIVING PROHIBITION REVOKED.

R. v. E.V. [2013]
Successful challenge to 90-Day IRP in case involving an issue about the identity of the driver of the vehicle. Mr. Shapray successfully persuaded the adjudicator that the police were mistaken about who was driving and the driving prohibition was REVOKED.

DRIVING PROHIBITION REVOKED.

R. v. K.W. [2013]
Mr. Shapray was successful on the challenge to this 90-Day Driving Prohibition where the client blew a fail reading on two samples taken at the roadside. Driving prohibition was REVOKED on the basis that there was insufficient evidence about the proper calibration of the screening devices and thus uncertainty about the validity of the test results.

DRIVING PROHIBITION REVOKED.

R. v. B.F. [2012]
90-Day Driving Prohibition in over 80 case revoked after challenge to police evidence on the time of driving or care and control of the vehicle.

DRIVING PROHIBITION REVOKED IN OVER 80 CASES.

R. v. M.V. [2012]
90-Day Driving Prohibition revoked after challenge to timing of Breath Demand and challenge to police officer's evidence in case involving an alleged refusal to provide a breath sample.

DRIVING PROHIBITION REVOKED.

R. v. K.T. [2010]
Written submissions made by Mr. Shapray to the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles result in 7-month driving prohibition being cancelled.

DRIVING PROHIBITION CANCELLED.

R. v. B.F. [2010]
90-Day Driving Prohibition in Over 80 case revoked after appeal filed following consultation with Mr. Shapray. Police fail to file required documentation resulting in NO DRIVING PROHIBITION.

NO DRIVING PROHIBITION.