You might think fighting a traffic ticket is straightforward. Pay the fine, accept the points, and move on. But what happens when that simple decision threatens your entire livelihood? The recent case of R. v. Chen, 2025 BCSC 2350 offers a stark reminder that even minor convictions can have major, unforeseen consequences, especially when you navigate the legal system without expert advice.
This case revolved around Mr. You-Yu Chen, a full-time ride-share (Uber) driver in British Columbia.
The Traffic Ticket and the ‘Good Deal’
Mr. Chen was issued a ticket for using an electronic device while driving. This offence typically carries a $368 fine and four demerit points.
Mr. Chen disputed the ticket. He attended traffic court on his court date and had discussions with the officer about a resolution. The officer would not resolve the matter in his favour, so Mr. Chen entered a guilty plea instead of running a trial. Mr. Chen advised the traffic court that he was a full-time Uber driver, and the court reduced his fine to $250.
He never raised the issue of points with the Judicial Justice in court, despite being aware there were penalty points for the distracted driving ticket.
The Real Problem: Collateral Consequences
It was only after pleading guilty and accepting the fine that Mr. Chen discovered that Uber’s policies meant that having 4 or more points on his record would case him to lose his job.
Since his distracted driving conviction carried four penalty points, his ability to work as an Uber or Lyft driver, his only source of income, was severely affected.
Mr. Chen appealed. On appeal, he sought to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he felt compelled to plead guilty and did not fully appreciate that the conviction would stay on his record for five years. He maintained that he was unaware of the impact the penalty points would have on his employment due to Uber’s internal policies. This lack of awareness, he contended, rendered his guilty plea invalid and amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
The Law on ‘Legally Relevant’ Consequences
The Supreme Court of British Columbia, hearing the appeal, had to determine if Mr. Chen’s guilty plea should be withdrawn and the matter sent back to traffic court.
A guilty plea is only valid if it is voluntary, unequivocal, and informed. If an accused person is unaware of the collateral consequences of the conviction, a person may be able to apply to withdraw the guilty plea on appeal. This only happens if the collateral consequences are considered “legally relevant.”
Mr. Chen argued that the threat to his livelihood due to Uber’s policies was a legally relevant collateral consequence. The Crown disagreed and argued that the connection between his employment and his guilty plea was too remote to be viewed as legally relevant.
The court sided with the Crown. The Justice held that the consequences resulting from Uber’s policies were not legally relevant. The Court determined that penalty points are an administrative function. Additionally, for a collateral consequence to be legally relevant, it must typically be something imposed by the government. Think, for example, immigration consequences. Because Uber’s policies were not state-imposed, they are highly individualized and internal to the company, they were not legally relevant collateral consequences.
The court found that expecting the police, the Crown, or the court to advise every accused person of all possible impacts their conviction might have on their income-earning ability due to their employer’s specific policies would be unworkable.
Because the consequences related to Uber’s policy were deemed not legally relevant, the appeal was dismissed.
Why Hiring a Lawyer May Have Changed Things
Mr. Chen represented himself throughout the traffic ticket hearing and in the appeal process. His experience clearly demonstrates the important role a lawyer could have played at two stages: both the original traffic court hearing and the appeal.
At the traffic court hearing, a lawyer likely would have asked Mr. Chen about his employment before advising him to plead guilty. A lawyer likely would have investigated the collateral consequences of receiving four demerit points in light of Uber’s policies. Had Mr. Chen known the plea meant certain job loss, he likely would not have entered it.
Mr. Chen felt he was not factually guilty. He claimed he only tapped his phone once to decline a ride request using the Uber app. A lawyer could have advised him on the legal risks of this claim, but more importantly, if the conviction was fatal to his job, they would have insisted on proceeding to trial to challenge the charge.
Lawyers also have the skills to run a trial.
Even if the officer does not make a deal, it may be worthwhile to take the case to trial if the only thing that matters is the points.
At the appeal hearing, part of the problem was that Mr. Chen was not familiar with the appeal process and evidence required. Mr. Chen changed his grounds of appeal during the hearing and relied on an unsworn affidavit. He also admitted his guilt in that affidavit. The judge noted there was no formal evidence of Uber or Lyft’s policies regarding demerit points, beyond Mr. Chen’s own affidavit. A lawyer would have ensured the necessary policies were properly presented as evidence.
Mr. Chen pursued several grounds that were unsupported, such as claiming he was compelled to plead guilty, but providing no evidence of pressure from either the police or judicial justice. A lawyer would have focused the argument on the most relevant legal principles and avoided merciless arguments or arguments that were not grounded in evidence.
There is a difference between feeling pressure to plead guilty because the system is daunting or intimidating and being pressured to do so.
On appeal, Mr. Chen’s submissions contained admissions about touching his phone to operate the Uber app. The court used this admission to note that he had confessed to the essential elements of the offence anyway. This completely undermined his claim of a miscarriage of justice. A lawyer would have carefully guided his submissions to avoid such admissions.
Mr. Chen, despite facing financial strain and focusing on survival, bore the full weight of the legal burden as a self-represented litigant. While the court expressed sympathy for his financial hardship, the justice concluded that the law must be applied as written.
This is why it is critical to hire a lawyer in traffic ticket cases, even ones where the case seems strongly in your favour.
