Kyla Lee

On Episode Nineteen of the Driving Law with Kyla Lee podcast, I speak with Paul Doroshenko about common client questions we get in relation to driving prohibitions. In particular, we discuss what to do when you receive a driving prohibition for points and the various options available to a person who has already received the prohibition. The answers may surprise, and probably disappoint, you.

You can listen to the podcast on iTunes, SoundCloud, or PlayerFM.

Once the interview of the arresting officer is done, the DRE officer is armed, largely, with the knowledge needed to start the evaluation. After all, they’ve already been told what the subject said and did and therefore are aware of what to look for. So at this stage the DRE officer conducts a preliminary examination and takes the first in a series of pulses.

This is the step designed to create a chaotic baseline so that impairment can be inferred.

This week we have a very sexy edition of Weird and Wacky Wednesdays. We cover off three separate cases that show you how sex, love, and marriage can get you in a whole world of trouble. First, we look at a case involving a woman in Vancouver who was allegedly sleeping with her lawyer after marrying another man for money. Then, a police officer in trouble for using his body camera in a more Kardashian-esque manner. And finally, we look at the case of a couple who got more meat than they wanted at a steakhouse dinner.

Recently, the BC Provincial Court had the opportunity to consider an important issue that has, heretofore, never been considered. And it was considered in traffic court, of all places. In the case of R. v. Sutton, the court considered the implications of a decision in an Immediate Roadside Prohibition review hearing and its impact on a traffic ticket issued in the same series of events.

I’m personally very excited by the legal developments that have been coming from our traffic courts and it is refreshing to see this level of court make so much progress in developing the law.

And while the argument did not work out in Mr. Sutton’s favour, the case raises a much more important issue. That is, how the RoadSafetyBC tribunal fails people in producing review decisions that do not properly outline the facts and law that led to the conclusion.

This week on the Driving Law podcast, I sit down with Roy Ho of Acumen Law Corporation to talk about the changes to ICBC insurance rates, and whether this will actually do anything to change driving behaviour, crash rates, or insurance claims in the province. Roy’s opinion may surprise you, so be sure to tune in to that. But first, Paul Doroshenko and I speak about two new traffic court decisions that change the law in BC, and which promise to spell big trouble in future cases. And we’ve taken the podcast on the road, literally, for this discussion!

You can listen on SoundCloud, PlayerFM, or subscribe on iTunes and tune in every Friday for a new episode.

Last week, we talked about idiot-proofing in the DRE test. This week, we address another step in the Drug Recognition Evaluation that is designed to make sure the police do not completely bungle the test. This is known as the interview of the arresting officer.

In many cases, though not all, the person who makes the arrest of a supposed impaired driver is not trained in the Drug Recognition Evaluation program. As a result of the lack of training, this person cannot administer the test and another officer must be summoned to do it. This will be common in Canada, as after cannabis legalization we will still have very few trained officers in Canada.

So the interview is a very important step.

A few weeks ago, I wrote a blog post about the cell phone immobilizer case. To remind you, a man was acquitted at trial of using an electronic device while driving on the basis of the fact that he had his phone equipped with an app that would disable it from use while driving.

The case received a lot of press, mostly because up until now there have been very few defences in electronic device cases. And the more press a successful case receives, the more likely it seems to be that the Crown considers an appeal. I have no knowledge of whether they are or are not, but it seems to me that one is likely in this case.

And here’s why.