Disputing a traffic ticket can often feel like an uphill battle, especially when you’re representing yourself. Self-represented people often do not have the benefit of knowledge of legal procedure or knowledge of the particular quirks of a judge or justice presiding over their case. It is therefore important for the players involved in traffic court, including the officer prosecuting the ticket and the judicial justice, to ensure the trial is fair.
A recent decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, R. v. Advincula, 2025 BCSC 1662, has highlighted the importance of procedural fairness in traffic court.
The Original Offence and Appeal Grounds
Mr.Advincula was ticketed for operating an electric-powered one-wheel skateboard on a Vancouver roadway without insurance, contrary to the Motor Vehicle Act. He disputed the ticket, and a court date was scheduled. On the scheduled date, he appeared in traffic court without a lawyer.
The Relevance of an Earlier Case: R. v. Peng
At the start of Mr. Advincula’s trial, the officer appropriately raised the subject of what had occurred in an earlier case involving the same issue in front of the same judicial justice. In that case, he had recused himself from hearing a case involving the same type of device. Due to his history of having been struck by electric skateboards in the past, he advised the disputant that his “mind was biased.”
The heart of Mr. Advincula’s appeal lay in an earlier case, R. v. Peng. It was heard about six months prior by the same judicial justice. In Peng, Ms. Peng was ticketed by the same police officer for operating an electric unicycle without insurance.
Judicial Justice’s Personal History and Recusal in Peng
During Ms. Peng’s trial, when she mentioned that law enforcement was pushing people to use such vehicles on sidewalks, the judicial justice immediately intervened. He revealed a significant personal bias. He had been hit twice by skateboarders on sidewalks, with the first collision causing a concussion, persistent vertigo, and forcing him to give up hiking. Four months later, he was struck again, suffering multiple fractures and being bedridden for months.
The judicial justice then told the officer and Ms. Peng: “my mind is biased,” and “I may not be more open minded than you would like a judge to be in order to hear your case so you may not want me to try your matter.” He explicitly told Ms. Peng she had a choice and offered to declare a mistrial so she could have her matter heard by another colleague, suggesting they might give her a fairer hearing. He even stated, “I am not a good person to hear a case like this.”
Ultimately, the judicial justice recused himself, stating, “I cannot hear your case” and directed Ms. Peng to get a new date with another judge.
What Happened in Mr. Advincula’s Case
In Mr. Advincula’s case, the officer initiated the exchange by telling the judicial justice, “I just wanted to advise you that this matter is in regards to the type of electric device. So I don’t know if you’d like to hear this matter or to –.” However, the officer did not explicitly use the word “bias” or detail the strong views and recusal on bias grounds that the judicial justice had expressed in the other matter.
The judicial justice interrupted the officer, stating, “Yes, I will hear the –” and indicated he had “heard those matters” before. Importantly, the judicial justice failed to inform Mr. Advincula about his previously declared bias from the other case, nor did he offer Mr. Advincula the option to have his case heard by another judge, as he had offered the other disputant.
This omission, despite the officer’s attempt to alert the court, meant Mr. Advincula was “left in the dark” about a significant issue that the officer had recognized as important enough to raise, thereby infecting the fairness of the hearing.
His trial proceeded and he was subsequently convicted by a judicial justice, receiving a $568 fine.
The Appeal and Findings of the Supreme Court
Mr. Advincula appealed this conviction. On appeal he argued there were shortcomings in procedural fairness, specifically relating to bias or the reasonable perception of bias. He also contended it was unfair to be ticketed and fined when it’s impossible to acquire insurance for his micro-mobility device.
The BC Supreme Court justice allowed his appeal based solely on the procedural fairness grounds, meaning the second argument about the impossibility of insurance was not addressed.
Justice Thompson, hearing Mr. Advincula’s appeal, found that the judicial justice’s failure to inform Mr. Advincula about the issue raised by the officer was a significant omission that infected the fairness of the hearing.
The court determined that it was necessary for the judicial justice to acquaint Mr. Advincula with the issue of potential bias so he could consider his position and potentially submit for recusal. Fairness dictated that Mr. Advincula not be left uninformed about a matter the officer deemed important. Mr. Advincula was deprived of his right to be heard on the potential partiality of the judge.
Justice Thompson concluded that the trial was “procedurally unfair to a fundamental degree” and that there was a “miscarriage of justice.”
What Does This Mean for You in Traffic Court?
This decision is both hugely important and can serve as reassurance for anyone disputing a ticket. This case strongly affirms that the right to be heard is a cornerstone of a fair trial. This includes being informed of any issues that could affect the judge’s impartiality. Judicial impartiality is essential. Judges and Judicial Justices must be, and must appear to be, unbiased. If a justice has a personal experience or strong view that could influence their decision, they have a responsibility to disclose it and allow you to consider your options.
While the onus is on the justice to disclose potential bias, this case highlights the importance of being aware of your rights. If you have reason to believe a judge might be biased, or if something feels “off” in court, you have the right to raise it.
This decision wasn’t about whether Mr. Advincula was actually guilty or innocent of the offence. It was about how the trial was conducted. A fundamentally unfair procedure can lead to a conviction being overturned, even if the facts of the case seem clear.
When a conviction is set aside due to procedural unfairness, it typically results in an order for a new trial. This means you might have to go through the process again, but with the assurance of a fairer hearing. While the facts of your alleged offence are important, the fairness and impartiality of the judicial process are non-negotiable. Don’t be afraid to understand and assert your rights to a fair hearing when disputing a ticket.
