Impaired driving convictions spark B.C. lawsuits

[simnut]

Actually Kenyo...I think that I said that comment

You’re jumping into the same boat then, because his rational is very much what was quoted.

I give up trying to understand some here!

Wait...what? How did I get involved... All I said was I was the one who made the comment about not having a legal background

[zzontar]

http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/BC-impaired-driving.htm

Appealing an Impaired Driving Prohibition

Drivers who receive an impaired driving prohibition can request to have the prohibition reviewed by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.

To seek a review, a driver will need to file an application within seven days of a prohibition notice. The Superintendent will then consider all available information – including from police, the driver and Crown counsel – and complete the review within 21 days.

He will, will he? What a blatant lie, I see a class action suit here for misrepresentation. I doubt they'd hardly have made a cent on the appeals if they told the truth, which is the superintendent will disregard all available information besides whether you were actually the driver and if the cop says you blew over.

[zzontar]

More fuel for the fire:

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws ... e/96318_07

Considerations on review under section 215.48

215.49 (1) In a review of a driving prohibition under section 215.48, the superintendent must consider

(a) any relevant written statements or evidence submitted by the applicant,

[goatboy]

http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/BC-impaired-driving.htm

Appealing an Impaired Driving Prohibition

Drivers who receive an impaired driving prohibition can request to have the prohibition reviewed by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.

To seek a review, a driver will need to file an application within seven days of a prohibition notice. The Superintendent will then consider all available information – including from police, the driver and Crown counsel – and complete the review within 21 days.

He will, will he? What a blatant lie, I see a class action suit here for misrepresentation. I doubt they'd hardly have made a cent on the appeals if they told the truth, which is the superintendent will disregard all available information besides whether you were actually the driver and if the cop says you blew over.

Your confusing different sanctions. This is for an Impaired Driving Prohibition, not an IRP. The give away is it references Crown Council, who is not involved at all in an IRP.

You seem to be quite good at posting irrelevant/incorrect information.

[simnut]

Look at this.....kind of contradictory if you ask me. This is from the MVA.

Considerations

215.2 In a review of a driving prohibition under section 215.1, the superintendent may only consider

(a) the report of the prohibition delivered under section 215 (10) and other relevant information provided by the peace officer with the report, and

(b) relevant information provided by the person on whom the notice of driving prohibition was served.

Then it says this right after......

Decision of the superintendent
215.3 If, after considering an application for review under section 215.1, the superintendent is satisfied that

(a) the person on whom the notice of driving prohibition was served had the right to request and requested that the peace officer administer a test to indicate his or her blood alcohol level but the peace officer failed to provide the person with the opportunity to undergo the test, or

(b) the person on whom the notice of driving prohibition was served was not a driver within the meaning of section 215 (1),

the superintendent must revoke the driving prohibition.

Huh?

[goatboy]

More fuel for the fire:

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws ... e/96318_07

Considerations on review under section 215.48

215.49 (1) In a review of a driving prohibition under section 215.48, the superintendent must consider

(a) any relevant written statements or evidence submitted by the applicant,

So this is relevant to an IRP. However, what evidence do you have that the Superintendent isn't taking relevant statements or evidence into consideration?

[goatboy]

Look at this.....kind of contradictory if you ask me. This is from the MVA.

Considerations

215.2 In a review of a driving prohibition under section 215.1, the superintendent may only consider

(a) the report of the prohibition delivered under section 215 (10) and other relevant information provided by the peace officer with the report, and

(b) relevant information provided by the person on whom the notice of driving prohibition was served.

Then it says this right after......

Decision of the superintendent
215.3 If, after considering an application for review under section 215.1, the superintendent is satisfied that

(a) the person on whom the notice of driving prohibition was served had the right to request and requested that the peace officer administer a test to indicate his or her blood alcohol level but the peace officer failed to provide the person with the opportunity to undergo the test, or

(b) the person on whom the notice of driving prohibition was served was not a driver within the meaning of section 215 (1),

the superintendent must revoke the driving prohibition.

Huh?

What exactly is the contradiction, keeping in mind that 215.1 is a 24 hours suspension, not an IRP.

[zzontar]

More fuel for the fire:

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws ... e/96318_07

Considerations on review under section 215.48

215.49 (1) In a review of a driving prohibition under section 215.48, the superintendent must consider

(a) any relevant written statements or evidence submitted by the applicant,

So this is relevant to an IRP. However, what evidence do you have that the Superintendent isn't taking relevant statements or evidence into consideration?

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/disputes/index.htm

The adjudicator can only consider these grounds during the review:

you did not operate or have care or control of the vehicle;
your breath test did not register 'warn' or 'fail' and you did not fail or refuse to comply with a demand for a breath test; or
you had a reasonable excuse for failing or refusing to comply.

[goatboy]

More fuel for the fire:

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws ... e/96318_07

Considerations on review under section 215.48

215.49 (1) In a review of a driving prohibition under section 215.48, the superintendent must consider

(a) any relevant written statements or evidence submitted by the applicant,

So this is relevant to an IRP. However, what evidence do you have that the Superintendent isn't taking relevant statements or evidence into consideration?

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/disputes/index.htm

The adjudicator can only consider these grounds during the review:

you did not operate or have care or control of the vehicle;
your breath test did not register 'warn' or 'fail' and you did not fail or refuse to comply with a demand for a breath test; or
you had a reasonable excuse for failing or refusing to comply.

This doesn't prove anything. The Considerations clearly state they are to consider "Relevant" statements or evidence submitted. It doesn't say they are to consider "all" statements or evidence.

Not sure if you missed it or not but I was also asking whether your suspension was prior to the IRP's?

[zzontar]

You missed the obvious contradiction. The case in question happened last summer and there is nothing else they consider relevant as obviously everything I stated that they disregarded in the appeal was relevant.

The part where I highlighted ONLY says it all

[simnut]

Look at this.....kind of contradictory if you ask me. This is from the MVA.

Considerations

215.2 In a review of a driving prohibition under section 215.1, the superintendent may only consider

(a) the report of the prohibition delivered under section 215 (10) and other relevant information provided by the peace officer with the report, and

(b) relevant information provided by the person on whom the notice of driving prohibition was served.

Then it says this right after......

Decision of the superintendent
215.3 If, after considering an application for review under section 215.1, the superintendent is satisfied that

(a) the person on whom the notice of driving prohibition was served had the right to request and requested that the peace officer administer a test to indicate his or her blood alcohol level but the peace officer failed to provide the person with the opportunity to undergo the test, or

(b) the person on whom the notice of driving prohibition was served was not a driver within the meaning of section 215 (1),

the superintendent must revoke the driving prohibition.

Huh?

What exactly is the contradiction, keeping in mind that 215.1 is a 24 hours suspension, not an IRP.

I know it is not an IRP, but the contradiction remains the same with the OSMV. With signed letters (notice the plural), a driver explained that 2 beer was consumed AFTER driving and BEFORE contact with the police (which was an hour after the driver was driving) . Now, remembering the officer based the 24 hour prohibition of "odor on breath", would you not consider this to be relevant information? Would that not explain the only reason the officer issued the violation? In a court of law it would! But, this relevant information was not considered and the reasons for the appeal to be denied was:

[b]Decision of the superintendent
215.3 If, after considering an application for review under section 215.1, the superintendent is satisfied that

(a) the person on whom the notice of driving prohibition was served had the right to request and requested that the peace officer administer a test to indicate his or her blood alcohol level but the peace officer failed to provide the person with the opportunity to undergo the test, or

(b) the person on whom the notice of driving prohibition was served was not a driver within the meaning of section 215 (1),

the superintendent must revoke the driving prohibition.
[/b]

The same happens quite often with the OSMV.......why we should worry that appeals remain in the hands of this office. Didn't a Supreme Court judge kind of agree?

[simnut]

http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/BC-impaired-driving.htm

Appealing an Impaired Driving Prohibition

Drivers who receive an impaired driving prohibition can request to have the prohibition reviewed by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.

To seek a review, a driver will need to file an application within seven days of a prohibition notice. The Superintendent will then consider all available information – including from police, the driver and Crown counsel – and complete the review within 21 days.

He will, will he? What a blatant lie, I see a class action suit here for misrepresentation. I doubt they'd hardly have made a cent on the appeals if they told the truth, which is the superintendent will disregard all available information besides whether you were actually the driver and if the cop says you blew over.

Your confusing different sanctions. This is for an Impaired Driving Prohibition, not an IRP. The give away is it references Crown Council, who is not involved at all in an IRP.

You seem to be quite good at posting irrelevant/incorrect information.

Well, not really Goatboy.....it still has to with the OSMV and a driving prohibition....so......it is not quite irrelevant/incorrect information.

[d_bengert]

http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/BC-impaired-driving.htm

Appealing an Impaired Driving Prohibition

Drivers who receive an impaired driving prohibition can request to have the prohibition reviewed by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.

To seek a review, a driver will need to file an application within seven days of a prohibition notice. The Superintendent will then consider all available information – including from police, the driver and Crown counsel – and complete the review within 21 days.

He will, will he? What a blatant lie, I see a class action suit here for misrepresentation. I doubt they'd hardly have made a cent on the appeals if they told the truth, which is the superintendent will disregard all available information besides whether you were actually the driver and if the cop says you blew over.

Your confusing different sanctions. This is for an Impaired Driving Prohibition, not an IRP. The give away is it references Crown Council, who is not involved at all in an IRP.

You seem to be quite good at posting irrelevant/incorrect information.

Well, not really Goatboy.....it still has to with the OSMV and a driving prohibition....so......it is not quite irrelevant/incorrect information.

I'm lost...isn't an Immediate Roadside Prohibition an impared driving prohibition...what is the Prohibition for in an IRP...are we not allowed to be immediately roadside for 90 days?

[goatboy]

I'm lost...isn't an Immediate Roadside Prohibition an impared driving prohibition...what is the Prohibition for in an IRP...are we not allowed to be immediately roadside for 90 days?

The IRP is a civil sanction and the quote zzontar was using referred to crown council being involved so it must have been relating to a criminal impaired charge.

[d_bengert]

I'm lost...isn't an Immediate Roadside Prohibition an impared driving prohibition...what is the Prohibition for in an IRP...are we not allowed to be immediately roadside for 90 days?

The IRP is a civil sanction and the quote zzontar was using referred to crown council being involved so it must have been relating to a criminal impaired charge.

Nope the website he got that from said exactly that...and it was about IRP's as well...a little confusing I agree...will have to check into it further