Blog

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.

The Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme in British Columbia has been criticized for its failure to provide many of the ordinary means by which the truth is discovered. Rather than allowing for witness testimony, cross-examination, and face-to-face hearings, the British Columbia law only allows drivers to provide their evidence in written form. If you select an oral hearing, you can testify. But your testimony and your arguments are limited to 30 minutes. This barely gives enough time to cover the material, much less provide a full case to the adjudicator. 

The types of protection you don’t have with an IRP are the types of protection you get if you are issued a speeding ticket, which is considerably less serious. It seems ridiculous that the more significant consequences of an Immediate Roadside Prohibition have fewer means to challenge them than a simple traffic ticket.

So what do you do if you have a witness to your IRP?

In a recent post, I discussed traffic court excuses that never work when you are issued a cell phone ticket. From the feedback I received, I believe I cleared up a lot of misconceptions about British Columbia’s cell phone laws. However, misconceptions about traffic laws in British Columbia are not limited solely to cell phones. In my experience as a traffic and driving lawyer, I have come to learn that there are also a number of misconceptions about speeding laws that permeate the way people approach their defences in traffic court. This post will clear up those misconceptions.

If you are charged with and convicted of a criminal offence, you get a criminal record. Your criminal record is not necessarily for life. After a period of time, a person is eligible to apply for a criminal record suspension, also known as a pardon. This is a fair and reasonable process, because people change. As you grow older and move on with your life, the drunk driving charge you got when you were twenty doesn’t necessarily reflect the circumstances you have at age thirty five, when you’ve got children and a steady job. Your criminal record shouldn’t follow you forever and impede your ability to travel and obtain employment.

But in British Columbia, your driving record does follow you everywhere. And unlike a criminal record, which is arguably far more serious than a driving record, there is no such thing as a pardon for your driving record.

There has been a lot of attention paid to the issue of bicyclists and the use of the roadways lately, particularly given recent stories involving a cyclist’s alleged assault on a pregnant woman or the cyclist ICBC is blaming for an accident because he was impaired. As a driver, I can say that my experience on the roadway is that many cyclists appear to be either ignorant of their obligations on the roadway, or willfully reckless about following the rules. It’s frustrating as a driver, and as a person who defends drivers because I can see the way that cyclists pose a significant risk to the public, but do not have any accountability when they violate the rules.

As a result of the increase in discussion on this topic, many people have been calling on Government to regulate cyclists in the same manner as cars are regulated: compulsory insurance policies and bicycle registration with plates. To my mind, this is the only reasonable system that keeps cyclists accountable to drivers, pedestrians, and one another, and it is the only reasonable system that protects cyclists from harm.

Over the last several months, numerous articles have been posted discussing the development of a marijuana breathalyzer. The theory is that through the miracle of science (or a complex technical formula the explanation of which is not relevant to this blog post) a sample of a person’s breath will reveal the concentration of marijuana in their bloodstream. This is similar to alcohol breathalyzers, though the process by which the sample is analyzed and the marijuana detected is vastly different.

Many groups like MADD Canada have pushed for a mechanism of roadside testing for drivers suspected of being impaired by drugs. They see the development of these tools as a victory in the battle against impaired driving. But will a marijuana breathalyzer really help anything?

I say no.

When I first read the judgments in the Wilson and Goodwin cases this morning, I thought “Well… that was anticlimactic.”

The short version is that there is no change to the status quo. The legislation that was challenged in the Goodwin cases (the first version of the Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme) was found to be unconstitutional for the reasons given by Justice Sigurdson. The Court commented specifically that the amendments to the legislation, i.e., the current version of IRP laws, demonstrate that there can be a more reasonable review process. This likely shuts down any further challenges to the current version of the law.

As far as Wilson is concerned, the Court concluded that the argument suffers from a fatal flaw: the legislation is not ambiguous. I knew going in that I had a tough, mostly impossible case. Getting leave to have my argument heard was a surprising feat. I am not disappointed with the work I did, and I fought to the end for my clients and a cause that I believe in. As a lawyer, that’s my job and I did it as well as I possibly could have. I have confidence that the Supreme Court of Canada is applying the law fairly and correctly and hearing all cases with an open mind.

Still, to be human means it’s hard to not get the result you want. Many people do not realize that being a lawyer is like riding a roller coaster every day. There are highs when you are victorious for your client, and lows when you are not.

So going forward I continue to do what I’ve been doing all along: representing my clients to the best of my ability and continuing to challenge the Immediate Roadside Prohibition law and any other law that impacts the rights and freedoms of drivers in this province.