A judge has set aside a driving ban for a Vancouver man who did not provide police officers a breathalyzer test sample due to what he claims to be complications from “long-haul COVID.”.Vancouver Police Department (VPD) officers gave Peter Ronald Gibson a 90-day driving prohibition for failing to provide “without reasonable excuse” a suitable sample of his breath on Feb. 11, 2021 while driving home from a restaurant..Gibson was pulled over after an officer noticed his vehicle had a malfunctioning tail light..When told to provide a breath sample, Gibson admitted he had been drinking, however he was concerned about his ability to provide a sample due to being compromised by long-haul COVID. He tested positive for the virus one month prior..According to court documents, the officer gave Gibson seven opportunities to provide a suitable sample, none of which generated enough airflow, despite Gibson claiming he had tried his best to provide a suitable sample..He was issued a driving ban and his vehicle impounded..Gibson applied for a review of the officer’s decision to the superintendent of motor vehicles, but the decision was upheld by an adjudicator who questioned Gibson’s credibility and determined there was no reasonable excuse for his conduct..Arguing medical evidence had not been fairly considered, Gibson filed a petition in the BC Supreme Court, seeking a review of the adjudicator’s decision..He said his lung capacity was diminished as a result of long-haul symptoms and, at the time, was taking various medical tests such as a CT scan and chest X-ray. A letter from Gibson’s doctor was also included, saying his condition could have contributed to his inability to provide a sufficient breath sample..Justice Michael Tammen determined on Feb. 18, 2022 that Gibson’s right to procedural fairness was indeed denied by the adjudicator and the driving ban was lifted..“He had no ability to respond, either through filing evidence or making submissions, to the critical observations made by the adjudicator,” said Tammen..“Those observations led collectively to a complete rejection of the petitioner’s position on the only live issue, namely his inability because of medical condition to generate sufficient airflow.”.The case was sent back to the superintendent for another hearing with a different adjudicator..Reid Small is a BC-based reporter for the Western Standard.,rsmall@westernstandardonline.com,.Twitter.com/reidsmall
