IRP appeal in March

[my5cents]

I like this distinction. Unfortunately I can't think of an alternative that both allows the citizen to appeal a charge in the same fashion any other traffic violation ticket would be while still being effective in removing impaired drivers from the road.

I agree Tori_K that that is the stumbling block. I also agree with other that the plain old 24 hour suspension did not work. It was never meant to be a major deterrent. It's purpose was for the borderline driver and was used on the person for whom criminal charges were contemplated to keep them from driving for a full 24 hours after they had been apprehended.

Impaired Driving and Driving Over 80 mgs are the most fought charges in Criminal Courts in Canada. As a result the case law surrounding the evidence needed and the manner in which it is collected is extensive. The added details increased the time it took the average police officer to complete an investigation and report same. The intricacies also made it harder and harder for the crown to obtain convictions.

The two -
1) It takes too long
2) I'm likely not going to convict anyway

Lead to police overusing 24 hour suspensions.

I'm not bashing police for this. It's a busy Friday night there are calls stacking up, other members are tied up, something has to be done.

What we need is a short term suspension to get the drinking driver off the road, there is no question about that. Then time for the driver to decide if he/she wants to accept the consequences of his/her actions or dispute them.

The dispute and documentation should be streamlined, eliminating the possibility of extensive case law and in either case, guilty plea, or trial should take place very soon after the offense.

The penalties can be as high as will deter those contemplating drinking and driving.

[Donald G]

To My5cents ...

The alternative to giving the drinking driver a suspension period is for the police not to have time to check the driver and thus permit him to hand out a death sentence to some completely innocent person that the UNCHECKED drunk driver smashes into and maims or kills. Compared to a death sentence I can not agree that the drunk drivers impoundment penalty is "too long".

Death, the penalty that the drunk driver knowingly takes a chance on handing out to an innocent victim is forever.

[my5cents]

To My5cents ...

The alternative to giving the drinking driver a suspension period is for the police not to have time to check the driver and thus permit him to hand out a death sentence to some completely innocent person that the UNCHECKED drunk driver smashes into and maims or kills. Compared to a death sentence I can not agree that the drunk drivers impoundment penalty is "too long".

Death, the penalty that the drunk driver knowingly takes a chance on handing out to an innocent victim is forever.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

"The alternative to giving the drinking driver a suspension period...." who said anything about not giving the driver a suspension period ? Not me.
"the drunk driver's impoundment penalty is "too long" " , who said the impoundment period was "too long" ? Not me.

I'm advocating that the driver is taken off the road. Quickly, they should have the right to accept the suspension or have the facts proven. After that if found guilty you can nail em to the wall for all I care.

[Donald G]

To my5cents ...

I apologize if I misread your comment regarding wanting a "short term" suspension to get drunk drivers off of the road. I interpreted 90 days to be a long term suspension and thus WRONGLY assumed that you would be opposed to a 90 day suspension. Sorry.

[my5cents]

To my5cents ...

I apologize if I misread your comment regarding wanting a "short term" suspension to get drunk drivers off of the road. I interpreted 90 days to be a long term suspension and thus WRONGLY assumed that you would be opposed to a 90 day suspension. Sorry.

No problem

Please don't get me wrong, I'd be happy with larger, longer penalties. I just think we shouldn't put the onus on the police.

Nothing negative directed at the police. I wouldn't want judges driving around finding motorists guilty at the scene.

Face it, in many facets of police work the police have the job to make a call, not now, but right now. Depending on the circumstance, those calls can later be deliberated over by various entities, police supervisors, police investigative agencies, internal, lawyers, courts. A decision a cop makes in seconds can be examined, reviewed, investigated, pondered over for weeks.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it's a necessary part. We have to take into consideration the human factor. Emotions can affect anyone and one of the short falls and the beauties of a subsequent review is removing the chance that emotion affected decisions made at the scene. The downside is also the same, the rude, violent, drunk, dirty, brute, arrested at the scene of an incident, when presented in court is all cleaned up, with a new suit and his lawyer doing all the talking.

If it wasn't for all the financial ramifications, leased, borrowed, co-owned, mostly owned by the loan company, I've thought it would be pretty neat to crush the drinking drivers vehicle with the requirement the driver has to watch. (some, would say with the drinking driver seated behind the wheel)

Ever think,,,, one thing the government has always ignored any time they have increase penalties for drinking and driving..... increasing Hit and Run penalties.

[my5cents]

http://globalnews.ca/news/1098456/watch ... r-cleared/

For anyone interested. For whatever reason I missed this News and perhaps others did.

[Donald G]

To my5cents ...

Good update post. It seems that the line separating the responsibility imposed by ownership and imposed on the licensed driver accompanying a "learner" license has been clarified. Although I might personally have decided in the alternative the decision made seems reasonable and opens the door wide for "learners" to drive drunks home ... or in this case "there and back.

Modified: See comments of KL3-Something (below)

[KL3-Something]

Not really. The only action that should have been taken in that case was the learner driver charged with driving contrary to restriction for not having a qualified supervisor over 25 in the car. By being sloshed grandpa wasn't liable for anything, but wasn't qualified to be a driving supervisor due do his faculties being impaired. With no supervisor and the only other driver in the vehicle drunk the learner should have been ticketed and directed told to park it until a sober and licensed driver could come to them.

[my5cents]

Not really. The only action that should have been taken in that case was the learner driver charged with driving contrary to restriction for not having a qualified supervisor over 25 in the car. By being sloshed grandpa wasn't liability for anything but wasn't qualified to be a driving supervisor due do his faculties being impaired. With no supervisor and the only other driver in the vehicle drunk the learner should have been ticketed and directed told to park it until a sober and licensed driver could come to them.

KL3-Something,,, there you go making up laws. Your job is to enforce the laws that exist, not invent them. Read the law, Sec 30.06 of the Regs.

Yes, I think it should say "legally qualified", but it doesn't. If you'd written up the kid for Drive Contrary to Restrictions, you'd have been just as wrong as the member who gave the IRP to gramps.

They were doing NOTHING wrong.

Donald G : The adjudication of the wrongly issued IRP, I believe was completed by the OSMV and really wasn't a "clarification", it was just someone reading the MVA Regs and making sure it is applied as it is written, not as a cop thinks the law should say.

I suspect this incident may bring a change to the conditions required of "an adult holder" in Sec 30.06 of the Regs. Until the wording is changed, it appears, that a comatose holder of a valid DL, positioned next to the learner, fits the bill.

[Donald G]

To KL3 Something ...

Your alternative charge route would make sense.

To my5cents ...

I would say that KL3-Something is advocating applying a law that presently exists rather than making up a new law. What the court decided would depend on how they interpreted the word "qualified". Is a drunk supervisor "qualified"?

[my5cents]

To KL3 Something ...

Your alternative charge route would make sense.

To my5cents ...

I would say that KL3-Something is advocating applying a law that presently exists rather than making up a new law. What the court decided would depend on how they interpreted the word "qualified". Is a drunk supervisor "qualified"?

"a law that presently exists" ? (For ease of discussion, I pasted Sec 30.06 below)

I can't see "holds a valid and subsisting driver's licence" to fit for something like "legally qualified". I think until the government amend the law, a drunk accompanying adult is just fine. Completely legal,, strange, but legal.

Accompanying adult conditions and passenger restrictions for learner's licence
30.06 (1) A person to whom a Class 1L, 2L, 3L, 4L or 5L licence is issued, or a person to whom a Class 7L licence is issued before October 6, 2003, must not operate a motor vehicle of a category designated in section 30.01 (2) for the class of licence issued unless the person is accompanied by another person who

(a) is at least 19 years of age,
(b) holds a valid and subsisting driver's licence, other than a learner's licence or a Class 7 licence, of a class that permits him or her to operate a motor vehicle of that category, and
(c) occupies
(i) the seat beside the operator, or
(ii) the seat or area immediately behind and to the right of the operator, in the case of a motor vehicle of the category designated for the class of licence issued in which there is no seat beside the operator.
(1.1) A person to whom a Class 7L licence is issued on or after October 6, 2003 must not operate a motor vehicle of a category designated in section 30.01 (2) for that class of driver's licence unless the person is accompanied by another person who
(a) is at least 25 years of age or is a licensed driver training instructor engaged in providing practical driver training in accordance with Division 27,
(b) holds a valid and subsisting driver's licence, other than a learner's licence or a Class 7 licence, of a class that permits him or her to operate a motor vehicle of that category, and
(c) occupies
(i) the seat beside the operator, or
(ii) the seat or area immediately behind and to the right of the operator, in the case of a motor vehicle of the category designated for the class of licence issued in which there is no seat beside the operator.

[jerome2877]

To KL3 Something ...

Your alternative charge route would make sense.

To my5cents ...

I would say that KL3-Something is advocating applying a law that presently exists rather than making up a new law. What the court decided would depend on how they interpreted the word "qualified". Is a drunk supervisor "qualified"?

Qualified relates to holding a drivers license. While I and most with common sense would agree that being drunk while supervising a learner is wrong. That's Not the law!

[Donald G]

To jerome2877 ...

The next time you get a supervisory job go to work drunk. If your boss agrees that you are still fully qualified I will agree with you. Otherwise qualified IMP means in condition to intercede at a moments notice.

But since the act does not specifically say that the licensed driver accompanying the learner has to be alive, perhaps driving the deceased from the hospital to the funeral home (with his licence clearly visible on the casket) would be permissible.

[my5cents]

To jerome2877 ...

The next time you get a supervisory job go to work drunk. If your boss agrees that you are still fully qualified I will agree with you. Otherwise qualified IMP means in condition to intercede at a moments notice.

But since the act does not specifically say that the licensed driver accompanying the learner has to be alive, perhaps driving the deceased from the hospital to the funeral home (with his licence clearly visible on the casket) would be permissible.

I would argue that a driver's license, to be "valid and subsisting", it would have to be held by a living person, but I concede that there isn't a section of the MVA that stipulates that.

[GordonH]

Bumped up (I am reusing an old thread instead of starting a new one, check the dates before quoting)

It will be curious to hear the outcome from this, I have never been a supporter of IRP’s. I firmly believe if police officers actually do their due diligence a conviction under criminal code can happen, which has long term consequences.
Unfortunately many officers cut corners and the driver is able to beat the charges.

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/370866 ... rohibition