Blog

The reality is that not all lawyers are Denny Crane. And Denny Crane’s motto of “Never lost, never will” was qualified all the time. In fact, that was one of the running gags in Boston Legal. Even the best lawyers lose some cases. But just because your lawyer lost your case (or you argued it yourself and were unsuccessful) does not mean that you should count yourself out.

Under British Columbia’s Immediate Roadside Prohibition legislation, the deck starts out stacked against you. You’re serving the penalties before the matter is decided. The police have an advantage in that their evidence is set out in pre-printed forms and tailored to answer all of the questions. If you are unfamiliar with defending an IRP case, you are not likely to know how to best respond to their version of events. Even the adjudicators have powers to seek out other material for the sole purpose of rejecting your arguments.

This is what makes an appeal of an unsuccessful IRP case all the more important.

Limitation periods are tricky. As lawyers, one of the first things we are taught is to pay close attention to limitation periods, because when you miss them the consequences can be devastating. And there are various limitation periods for various issues, so keeping track of them can be hard.

For traffic tickets, you have 30 days from the date you are served with the ticket to dispute it. If you’re served the ticket after the offence, this means from the date the officer issues the ticket, not the date of the driving incident. Remember too that traffic tickets are different from Immediate Roadside Prohibitions, 24-Hour Driving Prohibitions, or Administrative Driving Prohibitions, which have different time periods for dispute.

But what happens when you miss the time to dispute your traffic ticket? This blog post attempts to explain what to do in that situation.

A recent article by News1130 suggested that drunk driving numbers are falling in Vancouver. The article cites statistics provided by the Vancouver Police Department spokesperson, Brian Montague to show that in 2013, 1317 IRPs were issued to drivers. In 2014, the number fell to 1100 in 2014, and by 2015 it was down to 1030.

At first blush the numbers appear to show a general decline in drunk driving in Vancouver, but these numbers do not tell the full story.

I receive a number of calls from clients who have been involved in accidents, or who have fled from police and who are later given a ticket by the police. It is not uncommon for officers to show up on someone’s doorstep and serve them with a traffic ticket for something that happened days, weeks, or even months earlier. Most of these clients have questions about disputing these tickets, and questions about whether the police are entitled to serve a ticket after the fact, or for something they did not observe.

This blog post attempts to answer those questions.

Last week, we received a decision in a case we argued challenging the seven-day limitation period for Immediate Roadside Prohibitions. Our clients in the challenge had not filed for review in the first seven days. They asked for an extension from RoadSafetyBC, but due to a policy change in their office, RoadSafetyBC determined that it would no longer accept extensions of the seven-day time period.

We challenged that policy change but were unsuccessful. You can read more about it here. We have also already filed an appeal in the BC Court of Appeal. One of the things that was evident in the decision of the Court, however, was that the decision not to allow the extensions of the seven days is just plain old unfair. The Court wrote this:

Nevertheless, I agree with the petitioners that the seven day period permitted to seek a review of a 90 day prohibition is not appropriate in all cases as a matter of policy and can be too short a period.  I also find that it would be appropriate for the Legislature to consider an amendment setting out an exception to the seven day period.  Clearly this regime is to be considered in the policy context of rapid determinations in the context of an effort to address the problems of driving while intoxicated.  Nonetheless, in unusual circumstances, it would seem to me appropriate to enable the Superintendent, in his or her discretion, to extend the seven day period to seek a review.  In my opinion, the present period can be too short a window in all circumstances and the Superintendent should have at least a discretion to consider an extension in extenuating circumstances such as those of Mr. Isinger and Mr. Derkuch.

After we received the decision, the Justice Minister spoke to the media, stating that fairness was always something the Government was concerned about, and that it is important to constantly be looking at the legislation in order to enhance fairness for drivers.

So what has the Government done to make the law more fair, since the ruling last week?

Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada released its reasons in Caron v. Alberta. This case dealt with the question of whether traffic tickets in Alberta and traffic legislation needed to be printed in both English and French. Ultimately, the Court ruled that insofar as Alberta is concerned, there is no constitutional requirement to provide legislative bilingualism in the case of traffic tickets.

This decision is on the heels of another decision pertaining to traffic law and the province’s powers to enact that legislation. This was the constitutional challenge to BC’s controversial impaired driving law in Goodwin v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles). The Court there found that it was within the legislative competence of British Columbia to enact a provincial scheme to deal with impaired driving, even if there were incidental effects on criminal prosecutions.

I’ve been thinking a lot about these two decisions and what they mean for BC’s traffic ticket tribunal. It’s early to tell, but it is certain that they will have an impact to our office’s inevitable challenge to the legislation.

If you read my firm’s blog, you’ve probably read that we are consistently the top law firm in British Columbia for Immediate Roadside Prohibition for DUI cases. I wanted to write a short post breaking down some of the statistics over the past few months, so that people can better see the success that our firm has had, and in particular the success that I have had in defending these cases.

Frequently, clients who phone ask me who the best lawyers are to defend Immediate Roadside Prohibition cases. It’s not uncommon for people to want to shop around to find the best person, at the right price. I wish that I could answer these clients with the statistical information, but it’s impossible to do a hyperlink over the phone. So I’m providing the information here.

One issue that criminal defence lawyers deal with on a regular basis is shoplifting. There is a public perception that shoplifting is typically aberrant teenage behaviour. But my experience in dealing with countless shoplifting cases is that the stereotype of teenagers shoplifting for a thrill is not at all reflective of the reality of shoplifting. This raises the question: is shoplifting an age-related problem? Do people “grow out of it” or is it something that is not limited to any particular age range?

I’ve done some research into the role that age plays in shoplifting and have set it out below.

The Globe and Mail recently posed a question: how do we fix our drunk-driving problem? It has always been my position that the only way to ensure that there is less drinking and driving is by raising awareness of the dangers through education, and enforcing existing drunk driving laws in a visible manner. This means frequent roadblocks, television and radio ad campaigns, presentations at schools, and road signs alerting drivers to the impaired driving laws.

When the rulings in Goodwin and Wilson came out, I wondered what would happen to Bill 15, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act. I wrote about this bill and the changes that it would bring to Immediate Roadside Prohibitions in an earlier blog post. Originally, I had thought that the Government might back away from the changes, since the Court commented in Goodwin about the inadequacy of the review process, and the thoroughness of the right of review under the current scheme.

But when I saw the Government’s spin on Immediate Roadside Prohibition laws being “upheld” I started to question that belief. After discussion with some colleagues, I quickly realized that the Government was not going to back down. Rather, they were going to do what they had originally intended with the amendments.