Inadmissiblity Question ~ Looking for similar Alberta / BC case

[Kaibigan]

thank you @Kaibigan your advice. Your comment is the strongest so I feel confident. I did end up putting no to that question. I am 100 percent confident irp / irs won’t lead to inadmissibility. That’s 100 percent after talking to lawyer but it’s just the broad aspect of the question that worries me.

1) have you ever committed, been charged with, arrested for or convicted of a criminal offense?

My main worry is with the word committed in the entire question. Does receiving a provincial penalty for going over 0.08 and breaking a traffic safety act provincial regulation constitute commiting a criminal offence ?

Like you said the ideal thing would be to put no and still disclose.
...
because i can argue since i did not have my say in court and no fair trial there is reasonable doubt that I went over 0.08. This irs thing has stripped me of the protections I would have under the criminal justice system and that is not right. The burden of proof for the police was really low. It was on me to proof I am not guilty but in a criminal charge it is the burden of the state to proof , without a reasonable doubt that I am guilty.

any thoughts on that broad question? I am not one bit worried about inadmissibility but the word commission in that question bothers me. Did I commit a criminal offence by receiving a non criminal provincial citation for impaired driving ?
....

I don't think I can say much more to allay your fears, however misplaced I might perceive them to be.

In my view, short of some scarlet letter in your past not revealed here, in the present matter I am quite certain that you have never "committed, been charged with, arrested for or convicted of a criminal offence". The whole issue of "fair trial, burden of proof" and the full array of Charter protections never came into play because there was no offence. Not even a provincial offence. You were given an IRP under a provincial administrative provision. There was no charge, was there? You failed the ASD and got IRP'd. You could have gone before the Superintendent and challenged in the IRP on any number of grounds.

I draw some sustenance for my views from the fact that IRP proceedings are not criminal in nature, not only from the nature of the legislation but also from the fact that here in BC, at least, (and everywhere else, I'l wager) the courts have held that the civil standard of proof - on a balance of probabilities - applies in place of the criminal standard - beyond a reasonable doubt. My authority for that comes from many cases, including:

Morabito v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) S.C., Silverman J., 2016 BCSC 437, Vancouver S157311, February 24, 2016 (oral), 14pp.
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/16/04/2016BCSC0437.htm

See para. 5:

[5] Where a petitioner has advanced or raised an issue concerning any of the 215.5(4)(b) factors, the adjudicator must consider all of the evidence and determine, on a balance of probabilities, whether the prohibition should be confirmed or revoked. In other words, a decision to confirm the IRP can only occur where the evidence leads to that conclusion on a balance of probabilities: Robinson v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2009 BCSC 271, and Nagra v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2010 BCCA 154.

As for you "receiving a non criminal provincial citation for impaired driving", I do not think you received a citation/charge/ticket at all. The administrative machinery was invoked and you received an IRP, that's all.

 

[Fuzu]

I don't think I can say much more to allay your fears, however misplaced I might perceive them to be.

In my view, short of some scarlet letter in your past not revealed here, in the present matter I am quite certain that you have never "committed, been charged with, arrested for or convicted of a criminal offence". The whole issue of "fair trial, burden of proof" and the full array of Charter protections never came into play because there was no offence. Not even a provincial offence. You were given an IRP under a provincial administrative provision. There was no charge, was there? You failed the ASD and got IRP'd. You could have gone before the Superintendent and challenged in the IRP on any number of grounds.

I draw some sustenance for my views from the fact that IRP proceedings are not criminal in nature, not only from the nature of the legislation but also from the fact that here in BC, at least, (and everywhere else, I'l wager) the courts have held that the civil standard of proof - on a balance of probabilities - applies in place of the criminal standard - beyond a reasonable doubt. My authority for that comes from many cases, including:

Morabito v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) S.C., Silverman J., 2016 BCSC 437, Vancouver S157311, February 24, 2016 (oral), 14pp.
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/16/04/2016BCSC0437.htm

See para. 5:

[5] Where a petitioner has advanced or raised an issue concerning any of the 215.5(4)(b) factors, the adjudicator must consider all of the evidence and determine, on a balance of probabilities, whether the prohibition should be confirmed or revoked. In other words, a decision to confirm the IRP can only occur where the evidence leads to that conclusion on a balance of probabilities: Robinson v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2009 BCSC 271, and Nagra v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2010 BCCA 154.

As for you "receiving a non criminal provincial citation for impaired driving", I do not think you received a citation/charge/ticket at all. The administrative machinery was invoked and you received an IRP, that's all.

i really appreciate your comments and thoughts definitely helps with my fears thanks again

 

[Fuzu]

I don't think I can say much more to allay your fears, however misplaced I might perceive them to be.

In my view, short of some scarlet letter in your past not revealed here, in the present matter I am quite certain that you have never "committed, been charged with, arrested for or convicted of a criminal offence". The whole issue of "fair trial, burden of proof" and the full array of Charter protections never came into play because there was no offence. Not even a provincial offence. You were given an IRP under a provincial administrative provision. There was no charge, was there? You failed the ASD and got IRP'd. You could have gone before the Superintendent and challenged in the IRP on any number of grounds.

I draw some sustenance for my views from the fact that IRP proceedings are not criminal in nature, not only from the nature of the legislation but also from the fact that here in BC, at least, (and everywhere else, I'l wager) the courts have held that the civil standard of proof - on a balance of probabilities - applies in place of the criminal standard - beyond a reasonable doubt. My authority for that comes from many cases, including:

Morabito v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) S.C., Silverman J., 2016 BCSC 437, Vancouver S157311, February 24, 2016 (oral), 14pp.
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/16/04/2016BCSC0437.htm

See para. 5:

[5] Where a petitioner has advanced or raised an issue concerning any of the 215.5(4)(b) factors, the adjudicator must consider all of the evidence and determine, on a balance of probabilities, whether the prohibition should be confirmed or revoked. In other words, a decision to confirm the IRP can only occur where the evidence leads to that conclusion on a balance of probabilities: Robinson v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2009 BCSC 271, and Nagra v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2010 BCCA 154.

As for you "receiving a non criminal provincial citation for impaired driving", I do not think you received a citation/charge/ticket at all. The administrative machinery was invoked and you received an IRP, that's all.

my application was approved today. Thank you everyone. Said it would take 6 weeks but took 3 weeks only. Criminality and background check passed easily.