RSBC v. BF — IRP APPEAL – SUCCESSFUL – SUPPLEMENTAL POLICE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE WAS NOT PROPERLY “SWORN” BEFORE A COMMISISONER FOR TAKING OATHS IN BC — DUE TO IRREGULAR UNSWORN DOCUMENTATION BEING PRODUCED BY THE POLICE OFFICER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE DRIVING PROHIBITION THE ADJUDICATOR FINDING THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO MAKE THE NECESSARY FINDINGS TO CONFIRM THE DRIVING PROHIBITION – PROHIBITION REVOKED
Facts: On July 12, 2015 at just after midnight on a residential street in the Lower Mainland, BC the appellant, BF, was involved in a singular motor vehicle accident and moments later BF was found unconscious by another passing driver who saw the accident occur. The police and ambulance were called and when BF became conscious at the accident scene BF found that BF was being investigated by the RCMP for impaired driving. The police officer later filed a SWORN police report with RoadsafetyBC in support of an IRP driving prohibition for 90 days which indicated that a smell of alcohol was noted on BF’s breath who according to the officer denied having been the driver and then thereafter repeatedly lied to the police about the accident. The officer further indicated that an ASD demand was read to BF who subsequently blew “two insufficient samples prior to blowing a FAIL result”. Subsequent to the filing of his first report the same officer then felt the need to file a Supplemental report with RoadsafetyBC to explain a few more details about the incident. This second report incorporated the findings from the first SWORN report but this Supplemental Report was UNSWORN before a Commissioner for taking oaths in BC. BF hired Jamie Butler to appeal the 90 day IRP driving prohibition which had resulted. Mr. Butler cited previous case law and in particular the case of SMV v. Murray, 2014 CanLIii 2417 (Supreme Court of Canada) which indicates that only a properly attested to and sworn report of the Police Officer can substantiate a 90 IRP driving prohibition and Mr. Butler argued that there was an irregularity in the process by having the adjudicator consider any UNSWORN report even if it incorporated the findings of what appeared to be a SWORN report. It was argued that there was thus no evidence properly before the adjudicator to substantiate any driving prohibition. Decision: “Having reviewed all of the evidence before me, I find that the Report to Superintendent is not properly before me. I find I have insufficient evidence to make the necessary findings required to confirm the prohibition.” Driving prohibition revoked, no fine imposed, all towing and impound were fees paid by the RSBC. (July 2015).
