This week, we examine a constitutional challenge out of Nunavut involving mandatory driving prohibitions, break down a significant impaired driving Charter ruling in British Columbia, and discuss proposed changes that could allow paralegals to handle serious driving offences. Plus, Florida earns Ridiculous Driver of the Week.
In this episode of Driving Law, Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko break down a troubling new BC Supreme Court decision that reshapes how delay and disclosure are treated in traffic court. They explain why the ruling creates serious traps for self represented drivers and why it misunderstands how traffic court actually works in practice.
The BC Supreme Court recently asked for feedback on how to make chambers more efficient and accessible. Over a hundred lawyers and litigants responded. I took part in that process and offered several practical suggestions. The Court has now released its Summary of Feedback and many of the ideas I raised are reflected in it.
Disputing a traffic ticket can often feel like an uphill battle, especially when you’re representing yourself. Self-represented people often do not have the benefit of knowledge of legal procedure or knowledge of the particular quirks of a judge or justice presiding over their case. It is therefore important for the players involved in traffic court, including the officer prosecuting the ticket and the judicial justice, to ensure the trial is fair.
A recent decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, R. v. Advincula, 2025 BCSC 1662, has highlighted the importance of procedural fairness in traffic court.
A recent decision by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Shrieves v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2025 BCSC 1792, has upheld a key part of the province’s efforts to control motor vehicle litigation costs: s. 5(8)(a) of the Disbursements and Expert Evidence Regulation (DEER). This provision mandates that applications to exclude certain disbursements from a 6% cap on recoverable damages must be made before those costs are incurred.
An opportunity to bring in more diversity to the Supreme Court of British Columbia is coming as B.C.’s current chief justice, Christopher E. Hinkson, is retiring from the position come October, after serving in the role since 2013. It is a chance to implement change to a position that has been historically held by white men.
“I walk down the hallways of the B.C. supreme court, I look at the portraits, and none of them look like me, and that doesn’t make me feel like I belong in this profession, I don’t think [it] reinforces the idea for other people that they need to make sense for people from more diverse backgrounds.”
Vancouver-based Metis lawyer Kyla Lee on CityNews
Lee says the problems candidates for the top job see are compounded by a lack of diversity at all levels in the legal profession.
The first indigenous supreme court justice was only appointed as recently as 2022, with the first justice who is a person of colour appointed in 2019.
What exactly constitutes ‘distracted’ has always been a bit complicated. It should be obvious that holding a phone in your hand, whether you are texting, on a phone call, or even changing a song, means you are focusing on something other than the road, and therefore driving distracted. However, based on a new ruling in the BC Court of Appeal that happened yesterday, what constitutes distracted driving may have been clarified a bit, and it appears, it is no longer limited to just a phone in hand.