British Columbia’s Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) system is lauded by the government as an efficient tool for combating impaired driving. But behind the veneer of public safety lies a deeply flawed, grossly unfair process that tramples on fundamental principles of justice.
Chief among its failures is the absurdly short seven-day window to dispute an IRP. This arbitrary timeline—designed more for bureaucratic convenience than for fairness—sets countless individuals up for failure, leaving them powerless against a system stacked against them.
Seven Days: A Timeline for Injustice
Imagine this: You’re injured in a car accident, bedridden in a hospital, and barely able to think about your legal situation. Or perhaps you’re traveling out of the country, blissfully unaware that the prohibition you were issued on your way to the airport is subject to a ticking clock. Worse still, consider someone who has been wrongfully arrested and is languishing in a holding cell.
These are not hypothetical scenarios; they are all examples that I have faced in my career defending Immediate Roadside Prohibitions. Yet, in the eyes of the government, these individuals are expected to miraculously meet a rigid seven-day deadline to file for review of their IRP.
The result? Justice is denied not because someone is guilty or did anything wrong but because they couldn’t file a piece of paper in time.
This is not a justice system—it’s a Kafkaesque nightmare.
The Perils of Misinformation and Misguided Legal Advice
Adding insult to injury is the prevalence of incorrect or incomplete legal advice. Many people are unaware of the strict timeline until it’s too late. Even worse, some seek help only to be misinformed by unqualified advisors or lawyers from other jurisdictions where the rules differ, who might tell them they have more time than they do.
The government, fully aware of these pitfalls, has done nothing to ensure the public understands their rights. No clear, accessible information campaign. No leniency for those who receive bad advice. Just a bureaucratic shrug and a ticking clock.
Even the BC Court of Appeal, having considered two of the exact scenarios above, has simply said “too bad, so sad.” If you miss your 7 days, the legislation simply does not allow an extension of the time to file for review of the IRP.
Why the Government’s Seven-Day Rule is a Sham
This seven-day rule is nothing more than a convenience for the government, saving time and money at the expense of fairness. It’s not about ensuring swift justice; it’s about cutting corners.
The government has effectively created a system where the odds are stacked against those who need help the most. People in vulnerable situations—those who are hospitalized, traveling, misinformed, or incarcerated—are left with no recourse.
Even for those who are aware of the timeline, seven days is barely enough time to seek legal counsel, gather evidence, and prepare a proper dispute.
And let’s not forget the fact that the government charges you to file for review. So not only in those seven days do you have to figure out how to dispute the IRP itself but you must also come up with the money to pay to file for the review. And there are no exceptions to the $100 or $200 fee in the case of indigence or financial hardship. No Money? No Review.
A Call for Change: Extensions and Fairness
The government’s refusal to allow extensions for disputing an IRP is indefensible. A fair system would provide mechanisms for extensions in cases of genuine hardship.
Here’s my proposal for how such a process could work:
- Application for Extension: Individuals should be allowed to apply for an extension within a reasonable period, citing valid reasons such as medical emergencies, travel, or incarceration.
- Evidence-Based Review: The application should be reviewed by an independent body that is not the same body that will ultimately review the prohibition, requiring supporting documentation (e.g., hospital records or proof of travel). Otherwise the temptation to consider the case and arguments prematurely will be too great.
- Quick Decision Process: To maintain efficiency, these applications should be processed within three business days upon receipt of the application by the government. While that may seem like a short timeline, remember that this would be a staffed, paid, government office with a mandate to consider these applications. Further, there would be a very limited number of these applications such that the decision-makers would not be overwhelmed.
This simple, fair approach would preserve the intent of the IRP system while protecting the rights of those caught in exceptional circumstances. But fairness, it seems, is just not on the government’s agenda.
The Bigger Picture: A Government That Doesn’t Care
The seven-day rule is symptomatic of a broader problem: a government that prioritizes optics over substance. By championing quick administrative penalties, they’ve created a facade of efficiency while undermining basic principles of fairness. It’s a cynical, cost-cutting measure that sacrifices justice on the altar of expedience.
The seven-day period to dispute an IRP is a disgraceful affront to justice as it currently stands. Without an opportunity for an extension it makes the review an illusion to many. It punishes the vulnerable, ignores legitimate hardships, and silences those who don’t have the means or knowledge to fight back. If the government truly cares about fairness, it must reform this system. Extensions must be allowed, and public awareness campaigns must be launched to ensure people know their rights.
Until then, the IRP system will remain what it is today: a bureaucratic hammer crushing anyone unfortunate enough to find themselves in its path.
