Blog

Your 90-Day Prohibition for DUI and Time

Picture

In my last post, I discussed the changes to the BC Motor Vehicle Act that were underway. As expected, the legislation passed. Many of the changes the Government touted as positive have already come into effect, including the left-lane hog aspects of the changes. The Government made a big deal out of announcing this when it happened. But there were also changes slowly implemented that Government hasn’t advertised to the public. These are the changes to the drinking and driving legislation.

Your 90-Day Prohibition for DUI and Time Read More »

B.C. moves to eliminate court trials for traffic violations

Process criticized for stripping motorists of constitutional rights  By Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun April 8, 2015

The B.C. government is shifting traffic violations out of court in a move lawyers fear strips motorists of constitutional rights.

The Liberals are implementing amendments passed with no fanfare in 2012 to establish a new process for handling offences under the Motor Vehicle Act, similar to the paradigm shift made dealing with drunk drivers in 2010 when most impaired charges and trials were eliminated with a heavy-handed Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) regime.

The Ministry of Justice and Public Safety confirmed Tuesday that a two-stage rollout is planned to shift MVA violations from the criminal system.

Work is underway on Phase 1, it said, bringing in an electronic ticketing and online payment system; the new hearing system will follow.

Though the implementation date has not been set, the ministry maintained in an email that the Road Safety Initiative to transfer traffic disputes out of court “will create system efficiencies and make processes more accessible for citizens.”

“E-ticketing, coupled with a faster dispute resolution process, will mean that driver infractions will be recorded against driving records more quickly, thereby enabling interventions for high-risk drivers to be applied in a more timely manner,” the ministry stated.

However, lawyers who opposed the IRP scheme say this new plan is similarly offensive.

“It’s a frightening piece of legislation,” warned Vancouver lawyer Kyla Lee.

The IRP legislation is being challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada because it is a novel use of administrative law to address a criminal problem, which makes it easier for police, less expensive for government and dramatically increases fine revenue.

Aside from the concern of the province encroaching on the federal government’s criminal law-making responsibilities, the key change is that constitutional guarantees and defences available in a criminal prosecution are unavailable in an administrative context.

Under the amended law, police will stop writing “tickets” and electronically issue what are called “driving notices.”

“If you have a B.C. driver’s licence or have ever held a B.C. driver’s licence, you get a driving notice and are handled under the new scheme,” Lee said.

“If you are visiting from Alberta on vacation, you still get a traffic ticket, you get the right to have the usual court system.”

That’s one reason it’s unconstitutional, she believes, but adds the dispute and appeal process is similarly problematic.

Under the proposed plan, disputing a notice is a three-part process.

Initially, adjudication officers with the superintendent of motor vehicles provide an opportunity for drivers to plead guilty.

“They can offer you incentives to plead guilty, a fine reduction or giving you time to pay,” Lee explained. “It’s designed at the first instance to goad people into pleading guilty by giving them an incentive to do so. If you don’t do that, then you get to go to a hearing before the Driving Notice Review Board. That can be in any manner: it can be oral, it can be written, it can be in person, it can be in some kind of electronic form, or some combination of those.”

Before you have your hearing, though, Lee added, there is a pre-hearing where the accused must provide evidence.

“Now you don’t have a right to keep your defence a secret and have your witness come and have them testify that ‘he wasn’t speeding, I was in the car with him,’” Lee said. “You have to disclose all of your witnesses and your witness statements to the Crown.”

The police officer must submit his or her evidence by way of a sworn report, but if the officer who issued the driving notice can’t do it, any other officer can.

“Reading the legislation, the officer who issued the ticket isn’t even required to provide evidence other than the ticket itself,” Lee said.

“It’s insane. The decision of the board in the legislation is final — you cannot appeal the decision of the board to any court and you can’t seek judicial review.”

Although traffic tickets are misdemeanours, Lee insisted the consequences can be large, ranging from significant financial penalties and lengthy driving prohibitions to the forfeiture of a vehicle.

What the government is doing is trying to eliminate the ability of people to defend themselves, Lee maintained.

She said she and her colleagues are waiting for the new scheme to be implemented to launch a constitutional challenge:

“I think the government is trying to lull people into a false sense of security, where they feel that these changes are for the good of the public, but it appears to be for the good of government coffers.”



Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/moves+eliminate+court+trials+traffic+violations/10953200/story.html#ixzz3WjXew9fo

B.C. moves to eliminate court trials for traffic violations Read More »

Changes to the Motor Vehicle Act and DUI Laws in BC

Earlier this month, the BC Government announced big changes to the Motor Vehicle Act. These changes are currently in the process of being debated by the legislature. I expect that these laws will pass shortly, and we will see some significant changes to our DUI laws in British Columbia.

You may be wondering why you haven’t heard about these changes. That’s because the BC Government has been watering down the truth of what’s behind this legislation. There are sweeping amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act, most of which are being sold the public as the changes to stop left lane hogs and finally eliminate AirCare. These are amendments that British Colombians want, so nobody is putting that much effort into looking behind what else is in Bill 15, the bill bringing about the changes.

What most people have not realized, however, is that these changes also include changes to the Immediate Roadside Prohibition legislation that are designed to make it impossible for applicants to succeed in the review hearings.

I recently had the opportunity to discuss some of the changes the I feel are the most sinister with InfoNews.ca in Kamloops. The changes pertaining to the BC DUI Laws are also outlined on the VancouverCriminalLaw.com blog. I won’t go over them in detail here, but I do want to give a brief summary of the scariest ones. They are:

  • Shifting the onus of proof from the officer to the driver;
  • Placing limits through regulation on what an applicant may provide as their evidence and submissions; and
  • Allowing the Superintendent to seek out, create, and provide his own expert technical evidence in response to submissions raised by the applicant.

All of this is terrible. I also believe it is unconstitutional and I wholly intend to challenge this legislation at the first available opportunity.

When asked about the changes to the law, the Government does not want you or the opposition to see what they are trying to do. They try to explain away the changes as though they are positive. The focus when questioned by the media about the changes has been that the Superintendent will now be required to revoke a prohibition if the officer does not send in a sworn report in the first seven days. That’s great, but according to two recent decisions that is already the state of the law in British Columbia.

Look no further than Hansard debates on the subject for evidence that the Government either fails to understand the implications of this law, or that they are trying to obfuscate their true intentions. When introducing this Bill, Suzanne Anton had the following to say about the parts that pertain to impaired driving law in BC:

The elements in this bill relating to road safety programs aim to improve the operational efficiency of the existing administrative review processes and allow for timelier resolution of reviews by the following.

Requiring the superintendent to revoke prohibitions on review if certain police documents are missing. This provision will help decrease delays during the review process.

Secondly, clarifying the general legal principle that in administrative matters, whoever asserts a proposition bears the burden of proving it. What this means for an IRP is that if an officer has complied with the statutory requirements and provided the required documents, then in a review the onus is on the applicant to prove one of the grounds of revocation.

Third, allowing the superintendent to obtain and consider other relevant information, such as an expert report or technical materials in a review. This will ensure that all relevant information can be considered, allowing the superintendent to make the most fair and informed decisions possible.

Lastly, enabling regulations to place page limits on an applicant’s legal argument in an IRP review and establishing deadlines on the applicant’s submission of argument and evidence in an IRP review. This provision will provide the applicant with a maximum amount of time to present a clear and concise argument while ensuring the superintendent has sufficient time to make a fair and timely decision.

That is simply not a true and accurate depiction of how the law will operate.

To say that the law clarifies the legal principle in administrative matters that whoever asserts a proposition bears the burden of proving it neglects exactly what has been done here. The officer is, by necessity, asserting the proposition that the individual served an Immediate Roadside Prohibition was a driver, blew over the limit, took a second test on a different device, and had reliable readings anytime an IRP is issued. And yet the Government appears to believe that so long as the officer provides the required paperwork, then they have proven that to be the case.

How absurd is that? What happens to the principle that “he who says it must prove it” when the officer is, in effect, given a baseline presumption of competence, reliability, accuracy, and proof. If you assume that the officer did everything correctly based on the fact that the prohibition was issued and the officer provided some paperwork, you erode the purpose of having a review mechanism.

In Administrative Law, that principle is supposed to function so that a person asserting a fact in a factual dispute must provide evidence to say that it is true. For example, in a residential tenancy dispute seeking return of a security deposit, the person seeking the deposit back must first prove that it is paid. There is no presumption of regularity that applies to all rental contracts where it is assumed that a proper security deposit was indeed paid to the landlord. What the government has tabled is not clarifying an administrative law principle. It is eroding one.

Allowing the Superintendent to obtain and consider other relevant information also erodes administrative law principles. If you were to look at the actual wording of the provision, the Superintendent only derives the authority to do this in response to the submissions of the applicant. That means that the Superintendent is allowed to seek out evidence to use to reject your submissions, and only for that purpose. That provision is not designed to help, but to hinder.

It is well-settled law that a person may not be investigator, prosecutor, and adjudicator in the same proceeding. To do so gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias against an applicant. But what is set out in this legislation accomplishes just that. Again, offending very basic principles of administrative fairness and a certain standard that we have come to expect and deserve as Canadian citizens living in a free and democratic society.

And the last part that the Government touts as a wonderful change to the legislation? Placing page limits on an applicant’s legal argument. This violates another principle of administrative fairness: the right to be heard. It is impractical and unjust to tell a person that they may only present their evidence in the first instance in a certain number of pages. Many of my submissions to the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles end up being hundreds, even thousands, of pages. You will note that there is no corresponding limitation on how much evidence the police may provide for the hearing. How is it fair that one party can provide whatever they want and another is subject to strict limitations?

The answer is that it isn’t.

This law is not fair. It violates administrative law guidelines, principles, and the constitution. It takes the Immediate Roadside Prohibition system back to a place worse than when it was first introduced and found unconstitutional. It has no place in a free and democratic society, and its flaws are revealed by the very fact that the Government does not want people to know what they are really trying to do with this law.

Changes to the Motor Vehicle Act and DUI Laws in BC Read More »

Proposed legislation will strip presumption of innocence: Defence lawyer

KAMLOOPS – New legislation proposed by the B.C. Liberals this week throws out the presumption of innocence and instead presumes people accused of impaired driving are guilty until they prove otherwise, says a Vancouver defence lawyer specializing in impaired driving.

Amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act strengthen the government’s controversial Immediate Roadside Prohibition, which avoids the scrutiny of court and criminal sanction. Instead, accused drivers or their lawyers, call in to plead their case through a tribunal phone conference. The proposed amendments to prohibitions were introduced by Justice Minister Suzanne Anton in the B.C. legislature March 23.

Prohibitions were introduced in 2010 as a tool to curb the amount of drinking and driving infractions by stripping drivers of their licenses for a set number of days and impounding vehicles after a warning or fail registered on a breathalyzer. The roadside prohibitions have essentially decriminalized drinking and driving in favour of fines and vehicle impoundments. Impaired driving charges in the province have dropped 37 per cent since the introduction of the roadside prohibitions. 

Lawyer Kyla Lee says the proposed legislation must be challenged.

“In every case now people are basically going to have to provide persuasive evidence about their drinking pattern and about what their blood alcohol level would be. It’s an incredible burden to put on people,” Lee says adding she and co-workers plan to challenge the law’s constitutionality if it passes.

If a person is served with a prohibition, he or she has seven days to appeal it before an adjudicator via conference call. The calls are not recorded or available to media, Lee says.

“Our courts are open to the public but this tribunal is not,” she says. “The oral hearings are conducted over the phone. (The adjudicators are) in a room with closed door, nothing is recorded other than their own notes.”

Lee argues the issue is complicated when the adjudicator reviewing the case decides what constitutes evidence. Further amendments will allow the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, Sam MacLeod, to decide on his own initiative what technical, medical or scientific materials can relate as evidence to the applicant’s case.

“This change will allow the superintendent to consider expert technical evidence about (breathalyzers). Previously, a B.C. Supreme Court decision found that under the legislation, the superintendent could only consider evidence submitted by the applicant or the police in an IRP review,” MacLeod says in a statement released by the Ministry of Justice communications department.

Lee argues the legislation would grant the superintendent more power to discern evidence.

“They can point to anything in the regulation and call it a technical document. In theory, they could create a report that says whatever they want and as long as it’s prescribed in the regulation as a technical document the superintendent can consider it,” Lee says. “They’re putting restrictions on the type of evidence people can provide and how the evidence can be provided. They’re also opening it up so that the superintendent can go out and create (his) own evidence and seek out evidence. It completely interferes with the whole process of having an independent tribunal.”

Previous appeals show reviews of police breathalyzers to determine if a proper reading was recorded. Successful revocations were based on evidence that demonstrated breathalyzers were improperly calibrated, or not documented properly. Lee says if the bill is passed into law, that argument may no longer be applicable.

“They’re setting it up so that everybody’s evidence is rejected,” she says.

If an applicant wishes to draw on previous cases for reference, he or she will need to file a Freedom of Information request; adjudicator decisions are not publicly available.

Requests to interview Justice Minister Anton were denied by her communications department. An unattributed emailed statement was offered by the communications department but was refused by Infonews.ca

At this point it is unknown if and when Bill 15 could be passed into law.

Lee is arguing an immediate roadside prohibition case from Kamloops in the Supreme Court of Canada this May.

To contact the reporter for this story, email Glynn Brothen at gbrothen@infonews.ca or call 250-319-7494. To contact the editor, email mjones@infonews.ca or call 250-718-2724.

You can read the story on the original site here.

Proposed legislation will strip presumption of innocence: Defence lawyer Read More »

VPD Officer Smashes Car Window

https://youtu.be/3uakHnLHsBk

The law firm at which I work is frequently contacted by media outlets for comments on stories related to criminal charges and impaired driving.

We often post on our blog and Facebook pages links to the media stories, and these links can inspire a lot of commentary. It should come as no surprise that Canadians have strong feelings about drinking and driving, about police misconduct, and about their Charter rights.

Recently, Paul was interviewed by CBC News in relation to a story about a police officer smashing a driver’s car window. We posted the link to the interview on our Facebook page. Unsurprisingly, it generated a significant response. Surprisingly, however, was the nature of the responses we received.

Commenters on the post appear to fall into two categories: those who sympathize with the driver and are offended that he was not provided his Section 10(a) rights; and those who sympathize with the police, and view the driver as obstructive and guilty. Many people who commented seemed to equate the fact that he was charged with possession of a controlled substance, and possession for the purpose of trafficking with some objective justification for the window smash.

I was interested and a little shocked to see that people fell into either of two extremes in this regard. Had I been in the driver’s situation, I cannot say that I would have done what he did, but I am also cognizant of the fact that behaving as he did can result in the window being smashed, however unlawfully. But the nature of the comments in favor of the police causes me concern about the understanding of Charter rights that both police (many commenters on our posts are police officers) and some citizens seem to have.

Every person who is arrested or detained has the right to be promptly informed of the reasons for their detention. It is not enough for an officer to simply say “You are under arrest.” He must advise the individual of why he is being arrested. The smell of marijuana alone is not enough to arrest someone. The individual in the video was right in the legal sense to inquire of the officer as to his reasons for arrest. He did nothing wrong, legally, in asking why he was being arrested and in refusing to step out of the vehicle until he knew why.

Worse, however, is the disregard for the presumption of innocence. This is often referred to as the golden thread of our justice system. Without it, justice fails. Look no further than upcoming amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act to see a perfect example of how justice will be failed by the removal of this presumption. Simply because a person is charged with a criminal offence does not mean that they are guilty of it. Nor does it mean that the officer was acting pursuant to any lawful authority in detaining and/or arresting them. To assume that the conduct of the police is justified simply because there were charges laid erodes the justice system.

Discussion of these issues is important. It’s important to know why we have the rights we have, and how they benefit us.

VPD Officer Smashes Car Window Read More »

What We Can Learn About DUI From #TheDress

Picture

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past week, you probably have heard about #TheDress. The question posed with the photograph was “what colors are the dress?” Different people saw different colours.

In my office, Paul saw black and blue. I saw blue and gold. Our articled student saw gold and black and blue. Our support staff saw white and black. Everyone had a different answer.

I began to think about our subjective views of the colours of the dress, and how similar that was to impaired driving files. It is not uncommon that I have a client who is charged with drunk driving and there are multiple witnesses. Some officers say the client is stumbling. Others note no balance problems. Some police officer say the speech was slurred or the face was flushed. Others do not see these problems. Some witnesses say that the client was drunk after a collision, while others simply say the client seemed disoriented or shaken up.

Of course, there has been extensive discussion in the psychological and scientific communities on the fallibility and unreliability of eyewitness evidence.

Just as we all see something different when we look at The Dress, we also see things differently when we look at a person who is supposedly impaired. And our subjective perception can be influenced by what information we have been given in advance.

For example, if you were told that the dress is actually black and blue, you might look at the dress to see if you can see black and blue. Similarly, police officers responding to a report of a possible impaired driver are often looking at the driver to see if what they see matches their pre-determined notion of what the driver is doing. All of a sudden a lisp or an accent is slurred speech.

It’s human nature that when we are told something is a particular way, especially from a reliable source, that we expect to see it that way. And we will subconsciously craft our perceptions to match our expectations.

It’s a form of bias known as experimenter’s bias.

As defence lawyers, we know about this type of bias. We are on the lookout for it, and we try to structure our cross-examinations and our theory of the case around the possibility of bias where it exists.

The Dress is a good reminder that what we think we see may not always be reliable or accurate. And that this is also true for drinking and driving cases.

What We Can Learn About DUI From #TheDress Read More »

Loopholes in DUI Cases

Picture

An article was published on the CBC website this week, suggesting that impaired driving incidents are not properly declining due to “loopholes.” Frankly, as a lawyer who deals primarily with impaired driving cases, I found this article to be offensive and ill-informed. I want to use this blog post to address some of the most concerning aspects of this article, and the opinions quoted in it.

What is a loophole?
A loophole is different from a defence. Wikipedia defines a loophole as “an ambiguity or inadequacy in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.” The point of a loophole is to contravene the intent of a law, without technically breaking the law. Think of it as following the letter of the law, but not its spirit.

Loopholes in DUI Cases Read More »

What to Consider when Hiring a Criminal Lawyer

Most people do not need to hire a lawyer to deal with criminal matters very often in their lives. And so they do not know what they are supposed to consider when hiring a criminal lawyer. It’s often easier to hire a lawyer to help with a real estate transaction, a divorce, or a will, for example. These are the types of lawyers that many people need, and people are not embarrassed to ask for references or recommendations from friends. But criminal charges can be a different story entirely. Most of my clients have not told anyone outside their immediate family about the problems they are facing. So choosing the right lawyer can be difficult.
Price
Price is one factor that goes into people’s decision making about their lawyers. While there are clearly limitations based on what you can afford to spend, you should not be guided so much by the cost of the lawyer. There are some very excellent lawyers who come at a low price. There are some lawyers who charge more but may not be as skilled in a particular area. There is an old saying that goes “You can pay $500 for $5 of advice from an old lawyer, or $5 for $500 of advice from a young lawyer.

Legal fees are not standardized. Lawyers set their own prices, largely based on what they believe their services are worth. At our office, we try to keep prices reasonable because we do not believe anyone should have to go broke defending themselves from a criminal charge. Our fees are mostly determined by the amount of work we have to do in a particular case and what it will cost in terms of labour, time, and office resources to do that work. It’s not a scientific formula, but it’s close.

It’s a mistake to think that the most expensive lawyer is the best. This might sometimes be true, but it is equally as often false. Price should only inform your decision about what lawyer to hire insofar as it relates to what you can afford. Beyond that, you should not draw conclusions based on dollars alone.

Age/Experience
A short while ago, I dealt with a client who had a particularly complex case. Throughout the different steps involved in the case, this client insinuated to me repeatedly that they might be better off with an older lawyer. Honestly, I was offended. I was working hard on the case, and it was well within my wheelhouse to deal with the issues that arose. There have been countless other times that clients and potential clients have suggested that I am too young to handle their cases.

Age and experience are two different things. Personally, I believe that my track record of successes in Immediate Roadside Prohibition and DUI Impaired Driving cases speaks far more about my ability to handle complex cases than my age does. Experience comes from doing something, learning what is necessary, and doing it over and over again. There are many older lawyers who do not have the degree of experience I do in IRPs, just as I do not have the experience they do in other types of cases.

When you are choosing a lawyer, you should look for someone who is experienced in the area you need. Look for a proven record of success, and a reputation for winning or arguing new angles and avenues of defence. Do not be afraid to ask potential lawyers questions about the area of law you are dealing with to see how they answer. A lawyer with the right amount of experience for you will be able to answer you questions clearly and succinctly.

Fit
At the end of the day, you want to be comfortable with the lawyer you have. When you speak with them on the phone or in their office initially, you want someone you feel you can trust. You want someone who puts your mind at ease and makes you feel as though your case is something they can handle. This isn’t to say you should want to be your lawyer’s friend. Trust me, you do not want to have your friend be your lawyer or your lawyer be your friend. But your lawyer should make you feel comfortable with your decision to hire them.

Your lawyer is going to be the person who will be arguing your case in court, and making sure your version of events is properly heard. You need to be able to trust that they will do that for you. There is a lot to be said for someone who just makes you feel comfortable with the process. Trust your brain and trust your gut and you will find the right lawyer for your criminal case.

What to Consider when Hiring a Criminal Lawyer Read More »

What It Takes to Defend an IRP

Picture

A lot of people that initially call my office aren’t sure how to go about defending their Immediate Roadside Prohibition. They don’t know what it takes to defend an IRP. As with any legal work, most clients whose cases I successfully have defended are unaware of all that has gone into their defence.

Simply put, defending an Immediate Roadside Prohibition isn’t just about presenting my client’s version of events and hoping the adjudicator makes the right decision. There is so much more that goes into defending an IRP.

Knowing the Law
A huge aspect of defending clients who are facing long driving prohibitions comes down to knowing the law. This is why people hire lawyers in the first place — because they want someone who has extensive experience in a particular area and is best equipped to handle their case. When I defend clients facing Immediate Roadside Prohibitions, in every single case, I don’t just present their version of events. My submissions contain a comprehensive breakdown of all the applicable case law, and how it relates to their cases.

Part of knowing the law is knowing the cases that work for and against my clients. Just because a person lost their IRP appeal in BC Supreme Court, doesn’t mean that the decision should be disregarded. I have attributed a great deal of my success to the fact that I am able to glean the legal principles from the cases, and apply them even when the outcome has not been favourable.

One of the reasons I know the law is because I have been fighting these cases not just before the tribunal, but also in BC Supreme Court. Some of my successful decisions have resulted a complete change in practice and procedure at RoadSafetyBC.

Knowing the Machinery
One benefit that I have, that my clients often do not, is that I know the machinery. Not only have I operated and used an Alco-Sensor IV DWF on numerous occasions, but I have also read the manufacturer’s manual, the RCMP manual, and the calibration manuals. I have calibrated and checked the calibration of these devices using both types of alcohol standard. I have an Alco-Sensor IV and an Alco-Sensor FST in my office. I’ve even been certified in the calibration and operation of the Alco-Sensor FST by the manufacturer.

Because I have access to the equipment and the information about the equipment, I am able to discern easily from police records whether the breathalyzers were properly operated or functioning properly at the time of the test. There are so many nuances in the operation and maintenance of these devices that can be overlooked by people without a trained eye. Knowing the breathalyzer is a significant contributing factor to my successes in IRP DUI cases.

Never Giving Up
In truth, this is probably as much a personality flaw as it is a benefit to my clients. When something matters to me, I will fight to the bitter end. When it comes to defending Immediate Roadside Prohibitions, I never give up. Anytime there is a change in the law that benefits my clients, I will spend evenings and weekends in the office, pulling files, contacting clients, and making supplemental submissions to the RoadSafetyBC tribunal or the Attorney General. It is not uncommon for me to fax submissions to the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles over the weekend, until their fax machine runs out of memory and paper.

If you receive an Immediate Roadside Prohibition, you need a lawyer who knows the law, knows the machinery, and never gives up. I cannot promise that I will win your case, but I can promise that I am all those things.

What It Takes to Defend an IRP Read More »

Driver Risk Premium and Driver Penalty Point Premium

Picture

Many people find the information about the Driver Risk Premium and the Driver Penalty Point Premium confusing and difficult. In the third part of my series on the consequences of a traffic ticket in British Columbia, I am going to try to add some clarity to this type of consequence to a traffic ticket. Part one is available here. Part two can be read here.

ICBC can and will withhold your renewal of your driver’s license, or reinstatement of a suspended license until these amounts are fully paid if they are owed to ICBC.

Driver Penalty Point Premium
The Driver Penalty Point Premium is based on the number of “points” you have on your driving record. Different traffic offences have different point levels, and the premium is based on the number of points you accumulate in a one-year period. If in a one-year period you receive three or fewer points, then you will not have to pay the premium. For example, if you receive a regular speeding ticket you will be given three points. You will not have to pay the premium. However, if you get a regular speeding ticket and a ticket for disobeying a traffic sign, you will accumulate five points. You will be required to pay the premium.

The amount of the premium is based on the number of points you have. For four points, it is $175. By six points, it jumps to $300. The premium goes as high as $24,000, if you get 50 points in a one-year period. You’d have to be pretty committed to poor driving to achieve that, so don’t stress that this will happen to you. You can see a chart that calculates the amount on ICBC’s website.

Points are associated generally with driving behaviour that creates a risk to the public. The number of points is generally linked to the type of behaviour. A chart setting out the point level for various offences can be found here.

The time period in which ICBC will consider points accumulated is five months before your birthday. I was born in May, so ICBC will look at points accumulated on my driving record from January to December.

Driver Risk Premium
The Driver Risk Premium is assessed based on conduct that violates the Criminal Code, has a ten-point value under the Motor Vehicle Act or results in a roadside suspension. Two roadside suspensions are necessary before the Premium is triggered. You will also receive a Driver Risk Premium if you are issued an excessive speeding ticket.

Driver Risk Premiums are calculated on your birthday every year, over a three year period. A review of your past three years of driving will be done to determine whether you are required to pay this premium. The table located here outlines the premium values. As you can see, the amounts add up quickly, and escalate rapidly.

If you are assessed a Driver Penalty Point Premium and a Driver Risk Premium, you will only have to pay one of the two. You pay whichever is higher. So, for example, excessive speeding is worth 3 points. If you receive an excessive speeding ticket and a ticket for disobeying a yellow light, which has two points, you’ll have five points. But the Driver Risk Premium is higher than the penalty point premium, so you’ll pay that. This can come back to haunt you — the Driver Risk Premium is over three years, so you can end up paying penalty point premiums one year, and the Driver Risk Premium the following two years.

One example of this is if you are convicted of Driving While Prohibited under the Motor Vehicle Act, you’ll receive 10 points. You will then pay the Driver Penalty Point Premium for those ten points, followed by the Driver Risk Premium the following two years.

Can I get the Driver Risk Premium or the Driver Penalty Point Premium Reduced?
You cannot get the Driver Risk Premium reduced.

However, you can apply for a reduction in the Driver Penalty Point Premium. In order to have it eliminated completely, you must surrender your license for one year from your birthday. This means no driving for one year. Alternatively, it can be reduced if you voluntarily quit driving for at least 30 days. You can voluntarily surrender your license to ICBC at any point to seek a reduction. After 30 days, you can call ICBC and find out what your new amount owing will be.

If you are given a driving prohibition, you can also apply for a reduction of the amount owing. You will need to be suspended from driving for at least 60 days, pay the reinstatement fees, and reinstate your license. In all likelihood the $250 reinstatement fee and $31 short term license administration fee will outweigh any benefit to you unless your Driver Penalty Point Premium is very high.

Finally, if you’ve been licensed in another province for at least 30 days, living outside Canada, incarcerated, or medically unable to drive for at least 30 days, you can apply for a reduction. You will need documentation to prove to ICBC that you have met one of these exemptions.

Driver Risk Premium and Driver Penalty Point Premium Read More »

Scroll to Top
CALL ME NOW