Facts: Police officer filed a report saying that he was watching a crowded bar scene and saw IA and his friend leave the bar at 2:00 am. He saw that they were “milling about [his] vehicle having a smoke”. They re-entered the bar after 10 minutes of being outside. At 2:58 hours the officer saw the lights of same vehicle light up and leave the area. The police officer followed IA’s vehicle and pulled it over. The officer noted IA had slightly slurred speech and an odour of liquor on his breath. IA admitted prior consumption of liquor. A breath demand was made of IA and ONE breath samples was given by IA into an ASD. The result was a “FAIL” reading. IA appealed his driving prohibition. The disclosure that arrived at the lawyer’s office indicated that the police officer had filled out an extensive police report about the incident and had signed and dated the report (what is called the Report to Superintendent, or RTS), however the officer did NOT have the RTS properly sworn before a commissioner for the taking of affidavits in BC. It was argued that owing to recent case law (SMV v. Murray (BCSC)) that there was an irregularity in the documentation and the report was not admissible and had no weight. Decision: The Report to Superintendent was not properly sworn and therefore could not be considered by the SMV to prove the driving prohibition. Driving prohibition revoked, no fines imposed, towing and storage fees paid by the SMV. (July 2013)
