IRP Lawyer: Sarah Leamon Client received a 90 - day Immediate
Roadside Prohibition after providing a breath sample using an Approved Screening Device that registered Fail.
Client received a 90 - day Immediate
Roadside Prohibition after providing a breath sample using an Approved Screening Device that registered Fail.
Client received a 90 - day Immediate
Roadside Prohibition after providing two breath samples using an Approved Screening Device, both of which registered as «Fail» readings.
Client received a 90 - day Immediate
Roadside Prohibition after providing two breath samples using Approved Screening Devices, both of which registered as «Fail» readings.
Client received a 90 - day Immediate
Roadside Prohibition after providing two breath samples using Approved Screening Devices, both of which registered «fail» readings.
Client received a 90 - day Immediate
Roadside Prohibition after providing one breath sample using an Approved Screening Device, which registered a «Fail» reading.
Client received a 90 - day Immediate
Roadside Prohibition after allegedly refusing to provide a breath sample to a roadside breathalyzer (ASD).
Not exact matches
Background: The petitioners were motorists who had received 90 - day
roadside driving
prohibitions -LRB-» IRP») under provisions in the Motor Vehicle Act («MVA») establishing an automatic
roadside prohibition regime («ARP»)
after they had either refused to supply a sample of breath, or having... [more]
British Columbia's automatic
roadside prohibition regime has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada
after its rulings on Goodwin v. British Columbia and Wilson v. British Columbia today.
Client was issued a notice of 90 - day driving
prohibition after registering a FAIL on a
roadside breath testing device (ASD).