Client 1 issued a Notice of Driving Prohibition by the police. A review was conducted before the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.

Vancouver Impaired Driving Lawyer: Brian E. Mickelson
On February 15, 2009, client issued a Notice of Driving Prohibition by the police. A review was conducted before the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.

DRIVING PROHIBITION CASE FACTS:
Client was observed by police officer, asleep at the wheel of her vehicle in an intersection. The client had strong odour of liquor on her breath and exhibited substantial symptoms of Impairment by alcohol. Client charged with refusing a breath sample and having care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired.

ARGUMENT:
There was a 6 minute delay between the time that the police officer formed his reasonable and probable grounds and the time that the police officer made the Breathalyzer demand. Your lawyer Brian Mickelson, submitted that a demand under s.254 of the criminal code must be made forthwith or as soon as practicable. Mr. Mickelson states that without evidence of a proper demand, there cannot be a refusal.

HELD: PROHIBITION LIFTED:
The existence of a demand pursuant to s.254 of the criminal code is fundamentally essential to the jurisdiction found in section 94.1 of the Motor Vehicle Act. I do not find that the demand was made forthwith. PROHIBITION REVOKED

Back to 90 Day Driving Prohibitions