Kyla Lee

The NDP Government in conjunction with Victoria’s Capital Regional District Traffic Safety Committee has proposed installing point-to-point speed cameras on the Malahat Highway. What these cameras are, essentially, are cameras set at various points throughout the Malahat drive capturing images of the vehicles that pass by them.

Then, based on the distance between the cameras and the time at which the vehicles pass by, the cameras work together to calculate a speed for any given vehicle. Speed is calculated by measuring the distance the vehicle travelled over time. Those vehicles which are speeding will then be ticketed. Drivers in British Columbia have been asked to provide their opinions to Mike Farnworth by March 1, 2018.

The Canadian and BC governments are facing some difficult legal hurdles if they continue to pursue the notion of punishing people on the basis of having consumed particular qualities of marijuana before driving. 

​Earlier this month, I wrote about how the BC government will be introducing a 90-day Administrative Driving Prohibition for marijuana impaired driving and the flawed options available to how they will determine if someone is driving while impaired. 

And I’ve previously been quoted in articles about how significant an effect these poorly conceived laws will have on medical users. ​

But what does it look like when Criminal courts, which require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, try to handle cases involving marijuana impairment? 

Urine and blood tests can prove a person consumed marijuana. That much is agreed upon and established in the courts. But that’s it.

It can only prove that the person used marijuana in the past. What urine and blood tests cannot do is prove whether a person was impaired as a result of marijuana use.
​

​A few years ago, I wrote a blog post on the topic of the second test in an Immediate Roadside Prohibition case. At the time, I discussed how the right to a second test functioned as a double-edged sword. In one sense, it could exonerate you. In another sense, it could become inculpatory evidence.

A lot has changed since that blog post, and I wanted to revisit the question of whether taking a second test is really worthwhile for drivers. My conclusion based on the current state of the law is that taking a second test is a foolhardy idea. It’s a trap.

​Today, the BC Government announced its stance on marijuana legalization. Unsurprisingly, the announcement comes with some indication about how the province intends to tackle the issue of marijuana impaired driving.

Without giving away the details, the Government has announced that it will be introducing a 90-day Administrative Driving Prohibition for marijuana impaired driving. Nothing about this is surprising, as we had long suspected that the so-called success of the Immediate Roadside Prohibition would be translated into drug impaired driving when the time came. However, what is confusing is how the Government expects to administer the law effectively.

If the Government intends to make this a roadside penalty, similar to the IRP scheme, then there are essentially two equally flawed options available to them. If they intend this to be a 90-day prohibition based on a more thorough investigation, then that too holds inherent flaws.

So what are the options?

One of the most difficult questions I get as a lawyer is probably also the most common. I get it from friends, family members, clients, and colleagues. The question is: 

What do I say when I go through a roadblock? 

​It’s a tough question to answer because it lacks a lot of context. 

A few months ago, the BC Government announced yet another increase in the penalties for distracted driving tickets in this province. I have previously written about the manner in which these penalties are pretty much a long-con cash grab for government. What the Government hasn’t announced, and what it probably did not know would happen, was the manner in which RoadSafetyBC would step in to craft their own form of severe “justice” in cell phone cases. 

​BC’s lack of clarification for foreign drivers is definitely confusing. For one, all the Motor Vehicle Act requires is that a foreign driver carries a valid driver’s licence, even if the document is in a different language and police officers are unable to read them. This has caused countless frustrations particularly for visitors to BC who carry valid foreign driver’s licences, but receive traffic tickets for driving without a licence anyways because police officers are trying to be cautious.

This should never have been a problem.
Most developed countries around the world (and even other provinces in Canada) have already figured it out. They all use a little slip of paper called an International Driving Permit, which is a translated document to be carried with a foreign driver’s licence allowing local law enforcement to understand the driving privileges of the holder of a foreign licence.

This past week, a lot of outrage has been expressed online about another sexual assault case. In this case, a young man has been convicted of sexual interference, after he engaged in a sexual relationship with a thirteen year old girl. The matter resulted in a three month jail sentence for the twenty-one year old offender.

​Now, it’s hard to imagine that anyone is too upset about a three month sentence for a sexual interference case. What has the public upset is the fact that the imposition of the jail term in this matter is being delayed so that the offender can finish his semester at the University of Calgary. This has the public upset.