Immediate Roadside Prohibitions

CALL FOR A FREE CONSULTATION

604-388-6626

or fill in the secure form below and we’ll call you back.




    By sending us a message, you agree to our
    Privacy Policy.

    Case File: 0019-770

    Charges: 90-day Administrative Driving Prohibition

    Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

    Facts:  An anonymous police report was made concerning two males who were causing a disturbance.  Police attended and the males had departed. However, police located the client, who was sleeping inside a parked vehicle. The client was seated in the driver’s seat. The vehicle was in ‘park’ and the keys were not in the ignition. The keys were visible on the center console. The client was woken and an Approved Screening Device Demand was read. The client provided a breath sample, resulting in a ‘FAIL’ reading. The client was arrested, Chartered and warned and taken to the detachment where they provided two further breath samples. The client was issued with a 90-day Administrative Driving Prohibition.

    Result: The client filed for a review of the driving prohibition. On review, Defence argued that the client was not a driver or in care or control of the vehicle. The adjudicator accepted this argument and the prohibition was revoked. 

    Case File: 0019-659

    Charges: 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition

    Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

    Facts: Police were dispatched to a single vehicle accident where they located a vehicle on its side in a ditch. Police identified the driver as the client and spoke to them.  Police detected an odour of liquor on the clients’ breath.  The client denied consumption when questioned.  An Approved Screening Device demand was read and the client provided two breath samples, both resulting in ‘fail’ readings on two separate devices. 

    Result: Counsel filed for a review of the driving prohibition the client’s behalf.  The client provided an affidavit and a forensic expert report on review.  Defence counsel conducted the hearing and argued that the client’s blood alcohol concentration was under the legal limit at the time of driving and that they could not be considered a driver within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act.  The IRP was revoked.

    Case File: 0019-716

    Charges: 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition

    Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

    Facts: Several individuals called into police dispatch, complaining of a possible impaired driver.  Police attended the scene and located the vehicle in question.  The vehicle was parked and the client was sitting in the driver’s seat.  Police detected a strong odour of liquor on the breath in combination with other symptoms of alcohol impairment.  An Approved Screening Device demand was read and the client refused to comply.  They made no attempt at providing a sample. 

    Result: Counsel filed for a review of the driving prohibition on the client’s behalf.  The client provided an affidavit on review.  Defence counsel conducted the hearing and argued that the client could not be considered to be a driver or in care or control of the motor vehicle as defined under the Motor Vehicle Act.  The client therefore had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the police demand.  The IRP was revoked. 

    Client testimonials

    Read more reviews from past clients:
    Google Reviews or Lawyer Ratingz

    K.R., Google Review

    Lawyer Ratingz Review

    S.S., Google Review

    M., Google Review

    M.W., Google Review

    K.R., Google Review

    Lawyer Ratingz Review

    S.S., Google Review

    M., Google Review

    M.W., Google Review

    K.R., Google Review

    Lawyer Ratingz Review

    S.S., Google Review

    M., Google Review

    M.W., Google Review

    Case File: 0019-741

    Charges: 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition

    Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

    Facts: Police observed the client’s vehicle leaving the parking lot of a licensed drinking establishment.  A vehicle stop was conducted to check on the client’s sobriety.  Police observed a strong odour of liquor on the client’s breath.  When questioned, the client admitted to having consumed alcohol while at the pub.  An Approved Screening Device demand was read and the client provided two breath samples using two different devices.  Both samples resulted in ‘fail’ readings. 

    Result: Counsel filed for a review of the driving prohibition on the client’s behalf.  The client provided an affidavit on review.  Defence counsel conducted the hearing and argued that both breath samples were unreliable due to the recent consumption of alcohol.  The IRP was revoked.

    Case File: 0019-500

    Charges: 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition

    Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

    Facts: Police received a complaint about a single vehicle car crash in a residential neighborhood.  Police arrived and located the client’s vehicle.  The client was outside the vehicle and the vehicle was undriveable.  The client admitted to driving.  An odour of liquor was detected on the client’s breath.  An Approved Screening Device demand was read.  The client made no attempt to provide a sample.  

    Result:  Counsel filed for a review of the driving prohibition on behalf of the client.  On review, the client provided an affidavit.  Defense counsel represented the client and argued that the client had not refused to provide a breath sample but had instead asked to use the washroom.  It was the officer’s attitude and conduct that ultimately led to the deemed refusal.  The IRP was revoked on that basis.  

    Case File: 0019-353

    Charges: 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition

    Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

    Facts: The client drove into a roadblock and was identified by a police officer.  The officer observed bloodshot eyes and an odour of liquor on the client’s breath, as well as inside the vehicle.  When questioned, the client admitted to have consumed alcohol, approximately three hours prior to the vehicle stop.  An Approved Screening Device Demand was read and two samples were collected.  Both resulted in ‘fail’ readings.

    Result: Defence counsel represented the client and argued that the samples were not reliable due to mouth alcohol, caused by burping and regurgitation.  The IRP was revoked.

    Read our recent wins for real-world cases

    Learn More

    +
    Awards
    +
    Cases Won
    +
    Clients
    +
    Attorneys

    Call Now

    604-388-6626

    for a Free

    Consultation

    Latest News and Updates

    View All

    • Does No Condom Mean No Consent?

      Does No Condom Mean No Consent? With the release of the decision in R. v. Kirkpatrick, the Supreme Court of ...

      Read more

      Read more

    • Will Notorious Criminals Get Out of Jail Sooner Thanks to the Supreme Court of Canada?

      Will Notorious Criminals Get Out of Jail Sooner Thanks to the Supreme Court of Canada? Over the last week, some ...

      Read more

      Read more

    • Taxing the Unvaccinated Is the Wrong Approach

      Taxing the Unvaccinated Is the Wrong Approach The push to get all eligible Canadian’s vaccinated is going to extremes in ...

      Read more

      Read more

    Schedule a Free Initial Consultation

    If you have a criminal case, driving matter or family law issue in BC or Alberta, please call or e-mail Criminal Lawyer for a free consultation.