As of January 1, 2025, the British Columbia government has bought into force a new regulation limiting written submissions in Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) cases to a paltry 30 pages.
Framed as a measure to streamline the process, this change is nothing short of an attack on the integrity of administrative justice. The IRP system, already riddled with unfairness, now shackles those trying to mount a defence with a draconian restriction that makes it nearly impossible to present a full and proper case.
This arbitrary page limit—imposed by regulation and alterable at the whim of the government—disregards the complex, technical nature of IRP disputes. It is a blatant attempt to tip the scales further in favour of the state while leaving individuals struggling to meet an unrealistic standard.
It’s not surprising the government would do this.
One need look no further than the history of the IRP scheme to see that fairness is the last consideration the government has in mind. After all, the first version of the law was struck down as unconstitutional due to the fact that it did not provide a meaningful review process.
Then, when the law was amended and the government saw that too many people were winning their cases, they amended the law again. First, to allow the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles to write their own evidence, gather evidence from manufacturers and third parties, and to use that in a hearing to reject an applicant’s version — even if their information was proven to be scientifically inaccurate.
Then — when there were still too many people winning their disputes — they amended the law to put the burden of proof on a driver. Now you have to prove the breathalyzer was unreliable. But joke’s on you – you only get the disclosure the police choose to submit and no more. Certainly nothing that allows you to compel disclosure or cross-examine.
Oh, and supplemental submissions if you discover evidence after your review hearing is over? Not permitted. Too many people started writing in when court cases were decided favourably.
This new regulation is just another in a long line of amendments that are designed to ensure you lose. That way, the government makes more money. It charges you fines, reinstatement fees, impound fees, and interlock and responsible driver program referral fees.
The Complexity of IRP Cases Demands More
IRP disputes are not simple matters. They are complex, highly technical cases involving overlapping arguments, expert evidence, and scientific literature. For many disputants, success depends on their ability to challenge credibility of the police evidence.
IRP cases often hinge on challenging the evidence provided by the police. This requires a detailed review of police reports, statements, and video evidence—a process that cannot be adequately condensed into 30 pages.
Credibility is nuanced. A full analysis of police conduct—identifying inconsistencies, biases, or procedural missteps—requires space for detailed comparisons and thorough explanation.
Similarly, you often need to refer to scientific, technical, or expert evidence. Breathalyzer functionality, calibration records, and error margins are all crucial components in many IRP cases. Submissions must reference scientific literature and expert opinions to expose flaws in the evidence presented by the state. These arguments demand space to explain properly.
Expert evidence requires depth.
Explaining technical issues related to breathalyzer errors, environmental factors affecting readings, and police procedural failures cannot be done with brevity. Expert reports themselves often exceed 30 pages, leaving no room for argument that properly references and incorporates the contents of the report in an understandable way.
Any good legal argument in an IRP case demands that the disputant navigate complex case law. The body of case law surrounding IRPs is vast and continually evolving. To present a thorough argument, disputants must cite multiple precedents, analyze their applicability, and distinguish contrary rulings.
Compressing these nuanced legal arguments into 30 pages is a recipe for injustice.
Case law demands precision. Precedents must be cited, quoted, and analyzed to demonstrate their relevance. Cases that hold against driers also must be addressed and distinguished either on the facts or on the law. The volume of case law in IRP matters makes it impossible to present a complete argument within the new limit.
A System Designed to Fail the Vulnerable
For the government, the page limit is a bureaucratic win: less to read, less to review, and fewer successful challenges. But for the individuals caught in the system, it is an insurmountable hurdle. How can someone with limited legal knowledge, or even a lawyer with extensive experience, fully address the complexities of their case in such a restrictive format?
Justice Sacrificed for Bureaucratic Convenience
The page limit is not about efficiency; it is about silencing those who dare to challenge the system. It ensures that police evidence—already given undue deference—is even harder to rebut. It penalizes those who lack the means to hire top-tier legal representation capable of distilling complex arguments into an artificially limited format.
This change is yet another indication of a government more interested in protecting its administrative regime than ensuring fairness. IRP cases are high-stakes matters, often resulting in prohibitions that devastate livelihoods, reputations, and personal lives. To impose such a severe restriction on submissions is to undermine the very foundation of justice.
A Call for Change: Scrap the Page Limit
This policy must be reversed. If the government is serious about maintaining even a veneer of fairness, it must remove the page limit. There is no justification for capping submissions in cases as complex as IRPs.
It must also allow flexibility for complex cases. If limits must exist, they should include exceptions for disputes involving expert evidence or multiple overlapping issues.
Lawyers, judges, and experts in administrative law should be consulted to develop a process that balances efficiency with fairness. It will come as no surprise to anyone who has made it this far in this post that stakeholders in the IRP scheme were not consulted in any way before the changes were implemented.
The 30-page limit on IRP submissions is a disgraceful erosion of due process. It prioritizes expedience over justice, leaving individuals to fight for their rights with one hand tied behind their backs. This change must be resisted at every turn. Fairness cannot be sacrificed for the sake of bureaucratic convenience.
Until this policy is repealed, the IRP system will remain what it has always been: a mechanism for quick convictions, not for truth or justice.
