Application of the Charter in Written and Oral Reviews of Immediate Roadside Prohibitions

In Bates v Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, 2018 BCSC 1211, we recently succeeded in having the decision of an adjudicator confirming an immediate roadside driving prohibition set aside.

The Bates decision is significant because it confirms that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be considered by an adjudicator when conducting a written or oral review of an Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318.

The Court in Bates, ibid, cited Tsogas v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2016 BCSC 1742, and held as follows:

[18] … In the Tsogas decision, Mr. Justice Johnston makes some observations:


[20]     The Court in Goodwin held that “the demand to breathe into a roadside screening device constitutes a seizure that infringes on an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy,” invoking the protection of s. 8 of the Charter (at para. 51). Further, although the demand is made under s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code, for the purposes of s. 8, the provincial legislative scheme authorizes the seizure and thus the provincial legislation is open to Charter scrutiny (Goodwin at para. 54).

[21]     Charter scrutiny of a search or seizure requires a court to determine if the search or seizure was reasonable. The requirements are that: (1) the search or seizure must be authorized by law; (2) the authorizing law must be reasonable; and (3) the search or seizure must be carried out in a reasonable manner (Goodwin at para. 48, citing R. v. Caslake, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51 at para. 10 and R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265 at 278).

Clearly, driving prohibitions issued pursuant to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act concerning Immediate Roadside Prohibitions (IRP) are open to Charter scrutiny.

Thus, when reviewing the circumstances surrounding the issuance of an Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) by a peace officer in British Columbia one must always determine whether there has been a breach of an individual’s Charter rights. Any such breach must be raised in the written or oral review hearing in order to ensure that both the hearing and the outcome of the hearing are consistent with principles of fairness.

In order to do this effectively one should seek the advice of legal counsel who has experience challenging Immediate Roadside Prohibitions.

The content made available on this website has been provided solely for general informational purposes as of the date published and should NOT be treated as or relied upon as legal advice. It is not to be construed as a representation, warranty, or guarantee, and may not be accurate, current, complete, or fit for a particular purpose or circumstance. If you are seeking legal advice, a professional at Pushor Mitchell LLP would be pleased to assist you in resolving your legal concerns in the context of your particular circumstances.

It is prohibited to reproduce, modify, republish, or in any way use content from this website without express written permission from the Chief Operating Officer or the Managing Partner at Pushor Mitchell LLP. Third party content that references this publication is not endorsed by Pushor Mitchell LLP and in no way represents the views of the firm. We do not guarantee the accuracy of, nor accept responsibility for the content of any source that may link, quote, or reference this publication.

Please read and understand our full Website Terms of Use and Disclaimer here.

Legal Alert, Pushor Mitchell’s free monthly e-newsletter