This week on Driving Law, Kyla and Paul review two BC Supreme Court cases that highlight the risks of representing yourself in traffic court. First, they unpack the failed appeal of a driver who claimed he was interacting with his truck’s console—not a phone—when ticketed for distracted driving, and how a lack of courtroom experience undermined his defence. Then, they analyze a judicial review involving a rejected late dispute application—complete with a single stamped reason: “No arguable defence”—and why that was upheld despite arguments about inadequate reasoning.
DUI investigations are high-pressure situations that often lead individuals to make mistakes that can significantly impact their cases. Understanding these common errors can help you protect your rights and minimize the consequences of a potential DUI investigation.
Here are the top 10 mistakes people commonly make during a DUI investigation, along with practical advice on how to avoid them.
This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: Heavy Equipment Edition
This week in Bonnyville, Alberta, an individual used a stolen trackhoe to damage RCMP vehicles parked outside the local detachment and dropped boulders in front of the prisoner loading bay. Entertaining? Yes. Startling? No question. But more than anything, it reveals a growing trend: the increased use of construction equipment in crimes—either to “fight the man” or simply to generally cause destruction.
This week’s Weird and Wacky Wednesdays, we look at a few other recent incidents where someone jumped into a piece of heavy machinery, got themselves arrested, and ultimately wound up standing in front of judge.
Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!”
In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation explores whether Correctional Services can be held legally responsible when someone they release commits harm—and why the Supreme Court of Canada missed a crucial opportunity to clarify that issue.
This week on Driving Law, Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko unpack the devastating mass casualty event at Vancouver’s Lapu Lapu Festival, where eleven people were killed and many more injured after a vehicle was driven into the crowd. They explain the legal landscape surrounding the second-degree murder charges, why first-degree murder wasn’t laid (yet), and how additional charges could be added as the investigation evolves.
In British Columbia, the Motor Vehicle Act defines various levels of vehicle automation based on the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards. These levels range from no automation (Level 0) to full automation (Level 5). The Act also regulates the use of these automated vehicles on public roads.
This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays, the legal world continues to demonstrate that real life needs no embellishment. We’ve got a TikTok lawyer getting too cozy with the bench, a government team accidentally sabotaging their own case, and a prosecutor who apparently mistook a courtroom for a Harry Potter novel.
In the UK, criminal defence lawyer Mohammed Zeb is probably regretting his brief turn as a TikTok star. While waiting for court to resume at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court, Zeb decided to film himself seated in the judge’s chair. The video, which he proudly posted to his social media accounts, featured a smug caption about “finally making it to the top.”
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) was not amused. They issued a formal warning for unprofessional conduct, noting that the court was a place for serious legal business—not clout-chasing content creation. Zeb quickly apologized and removed the video, saying it was a joke and never meant to be taken seriously.
Unfortunately for him, jokes don’t sit well with regulators when they involve judicial impersonation. One senior barrister remarked dryly, “It’s not cosplay if you hold a law licence.” The incident now sits on Zeb’s professional record, likely ensuring he’ll never get near the actual bench—unless he’s on trial.
In an incredible lapse of internal controls, lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice accidentally filed a confidential memo in a federal court proceeding that undercut their own case. The memo acknowledged “significant litigation risk” in their legal challenge to New York’s congestion pricing program.
Intended to be internal, the memo was publicly accessible online for several hours before being sealed. But that was enough time for reporters, lawyers, and opposing counsel to download and dissect it. The document even included assessments of possible legal outcomes and alternative negotiation strategies.
The fallout was swift. The lead DOJ lawyers were pulled from the file, and the Department of Transportation called the filing “deeply embarrassing.” One insider described it as “legal malpractice in three acts.” The incident stands as a brutal reminder of how one misfiled PDF can undo months of strategy—and make a strong case for naming your files carefully.
In one of the more surreal moments to come out of a courtroom this year, a district attorney in a U.S. state court raised an eyebrow (and the roof) when he suggested the defendant was engaging in witchcraft. The case had nothing to do with the occult—just a standard domestic dispute—but the prosecutor alleged that the accused was using “manipulative energies” and “casting influence” over jurors and court staff.
The judge, displaying remarkable restraint, interrupted the argument and firmly reminded the DA that witchcraft is not a recognized legal concept. The accusation was stricken from the record, and the court continued—without incense, pentagrams, or exorcisms.
The DA has since been referred to the state bar for conduct review. The defence lawyer reportedly remarked outside court, “Next time I’ll bring garlic and a silver cross.”
Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!”
In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation discusses a constitutional challenge to a provincial declaration—and why the Supreme Court of Canada missed an opportunity to define the limits of provincial powers when it comes to international issues.
This issue to some extent arose in the recent British Columbia Supreme Court case of Rex v. Andre Paul Chauvin, which involved an appeal against a conviction for using an electronic device while driving contrary to the Motor Vehicle Act. The appeal centred on whether the original trial judge, Judicial Justice Blackstone, had misunderstood key evidence presented by Mr. Chauvin, who represented himself.
This week on Driving Law, Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko take a deep dive into two major developments in law and driving that show how privacy breaches and government decisions continue to ripple across BC and beyond.
