BC has six months to make changes to drunk driving laws
British Columbia’s Supreme Court has given the province until June 30, 2012 to propose legislative changes to the aspects of the drunk driving law that require amendment. (Read the decision here.)
Earlier this month, Justice Jon Sigurdson ruled that parts of the existing law, including the Automatic Roadside Prohibition program (ARP), also known as the Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP), are unconstitutional.
Attorney General Shirley Bond said the issue will be raised at the next legislative session.
“We will work to introduce changes to the Motor Vehicle Act as soon as possible in the spring legislative session. We continue to analyze Justice Sigurdson’s comprehensive decision to determine what those changes will consist of,” Bond said.
“We are pleased that the court order upheld the constitutionality of the 90-day IRP for those who refuse to provide a breath sample at roadside when requested to do so by a police officer,” she added. “The IRP program has also been found to be constitutionally valid by the court for those who blow in the warn range of 0.05 to 0.08.”
The Merchant Law Group has filed a Notice of Civil Claim for a class action lawsuit to compensate those who had “their guilt wrongfully determined by a screening device” under B.C.s’ ARP program.
The action claims damages against the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and the Attorney General of the Province of British Columbia for breach of s.8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Regime infringes on s.8 of the Charter because it authorizes a search by a screening device on the basis of reasonable suspicion and imposes lengthy prohibitions and significant costs and penalties on motorists, without providing motorists with any meaningful basis to challenge the validity of the search results.
