Blog

In our law office, we deal with more roadside drinking and driving cases than any other law firm in the province. As a result, I probably speak with more people about drinking and driving in a month than many lawyers will in a year. I’ve come to realize that there are some very common and pervasive misconceptions about drinking and driving that exist in our province. This post will help to dispel a lot of those myths.

Proponents of the new changes to BC’s traffic ticket dispute process argue that the new system will decease the number of delays in bringing traffic ticket cases to court. There is no doubt that, particularly in the Lower Mainland, there is a significant problem with delay in the processing of traffic tickets, and the timelines to get your ticket to court. But, for the reasons discussed in this blog post, the delay in the system doesn’t lead to many tickets being dismissed and doesn’t often create significant prejudice to an applicant. Clearing up traffic court delay is a straw man argument designed to keep people from coming up with workable solutions to the problems in traffic court.

As a dedicated driving lawyer, I deal with a lot of people who have got themselves into hot water for what they’ve said to police. A lot of my clients ask me what they are supposed to say when they have been stopped at a roadblock. While I can’t really answer what you’re supposed to say, since there doesn’t seem to be a helpful answer, I can provide some information on what you have to say when you’re stopped by police or when you are asked about drinking.

I deal with a fair number of 24-Hour Prohibitions for Drugs in the course of my work. These types of prohibition are dangerous, in my opinion, because they can happen to anyone at any time or place on a roadway. They also involve greater consequences than what is told to the driver at the time the prohibition is issued. And disputing them is a complex and often expensive process, with results that do not really address the concerns a dispute process should. I’ve previously written about drug-impaired driving laws in Canada, and promised that I would follow up with more information about the 24-Hour for Drugs dispute process.

Earlier this week, a video surfaced of a Kelowna RCMP officer stopping a vehicle because the passenger had made a frustrated gesture at the officer after some poor driving on his part. It is clear in watching the video that the officer’s true purpose in stopping the vehicle was to berate the passenger for his gesture. When challenged on his decision to stop the vehicle, the officer told the driver that he had stopped her for a license and insurance check. It was obvious that the officer was retroactively trying to justify what was an arbitrary and unlawful traffic stop. The officer is now under investigation. 

This interaction got me thinking about lawful and unlawful police stops. As a driving and criminal lawyer, I receive many calls from clients who are concerned about the police and their traffic stops. Many people are concerned about the reason why the police pulled them over in the first place. This post will explain when the police are justified in stopping your vehicle.

As a driving lawyer, I receive many telephone calls from people who have questions about their traffic tickets. I have also had the benefit of listening to disputants in traffic court present their cases, without having consulted a lawyer. Some people even go so far as to advise others in the courthouse about how to dispute their cases. Helpful tip: don’t take your traffic ticket dispute advice from someone who is not an experience driving lawyer.

A lot of people have some common misconceptions about traffic tickets, and how to defend these traffic tickets. This post will help to dispel some of those misconceptions.

Between the race to develop a marijuana “breathalyzer” and the legalization of marijuana in U.S. border states like Colorado and Washington, there has been a great deal of discussion about drug impaired driving law in British Columbia and Canada. Many groups such as MADD Canada and the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse have been putting pressure on government to establish “per se” limits for drugs in the body. But will this really deal with the problem of drug-impaired driving? And is drug-impaired driving really a problem in Canada?

If you’ve been following my blog or my firm‘s blog, you’ve probably read a little bit about fairness in DUI hearings in British Columbia. There are aspects of fairness that affect all levels of the Immediate Roadside Prohibition, from dealing with the police at the roadside, to obtaining disclosure, preparing your defence, presenting your arguments, and receiving your decision. But what about what happens after you receive your decision?

This is where another level of unfairness in the process comes into play.

This summer has been unbelievably hot in British Columbia, and as a consequence of the heat there have been an inordinate number of forest fires. The Government has already spent over $100 Million fighting these fires, with over 200 still burning in the province. It has been costly and devastating.

But some politicians have been using forest fires as an argument to justify taking your car. That’s right. The BC Government is currently considering whether they can impound your car because of forest fires. Now, if you’re a rational British Columbian like me, you’re probably wondering what the connection between forest fires and your vehicle is.

Let me tell you.

When you are pulled over and subject to an Immediate Roadside Prohibition investigation, you have the right to a second breathalyzer test at the roadside. This test is required to be conducted on a different device, and the lower of the two readings will prevail. The second test is sold to drivers by police as the mechanism by which they are entitled to challenge the results of the first test, and that they have nothing to lose by taking this. Well, that’s only sometimes true. The second breathalyzer test is often a double-edged sword.