A recent decision by the Court of Appeal for British Columbia in R. v. Dancho, 2025 BCCA 258, has granted leave to appeal in a case challenging a traffic ticket. This case raises important issues that affect applications to withdraw guilty pleas in traffic ticket cases.
The Court of Appeal Grants Leave in a Traffic Ticket Case
In Mr. Dancho’s case, the BC Supreme Court dismissed his application to extend time for filing a notice of appeal of his traffic ticket guilty plea. This came after Mr. Dancho realized the ticket had penalty points only after receiving an invoice for the Driver Risk Premium in the mail. Mr. Dancho had pled guilty in order to request a fine reduction because he had a limited income.
The Court of Appeal granted leave because Mr. Dancho raised arguable issues that the BC Supreme Court judge misapprehended applicable legal standards, leading to errors of law. Specifically, he raised concerns about the BC Supreme Court judge’s assessment of setting aside the guilty plea. These included that she had applied an incorrect legal standard.
Legal Errors and the Standard for Withdrawing Guilty Pleas
The BC Supreme Court judge arguably applied an incorrect framework by requiring “exceptional circumstances” to withdraw the plea, a requirement absent from the established framework which only requires exceptional circumstances to grant and extension of time, but not to withdraw a plea.
Mr. Dancho also argued that the BC Supreme Court judge failed to consider the collateral consequences of the ticket. The BC Supreme Court judge allegedly failed to consider if Mr. Dancho would have proceeded differently had he known of the substantial Driver Penalty Point Premium, a legally relevant collateral consequence. This is an important issue because the case law in British Columbia on whether driver penalty points or the associated premiums are legally relevant consequences is split. The BC Court of Appeal granting leave to appeal in this case means that these issues will finally be heard by a higher level court and decided, hopefully, in a favorable way for people who wish to withdraw their guilty pleas in the future.
Collateral Consequences and Viable Defence Concerns
Mr. Dancho was also required to prove he had a viable defence. Not only is this not an aspect of whether or not a person should be given leave to appeal or an extension of time to appeal their guilty plea, but in this case, the accused was also unable to advance a viable defence in the original application. When a person applies for a fine reduction only, they are not permitted to advance any defence to the case. So he never could have put that evidence forward in any event.
The BC Supreme Court judge assumed that Mr. Dancho knew about penalty points due to a 2008 traffic ticket. Yet, the appellant argued that the Driver Penalty Point system was introduced in 2009, meaning the consequences of points and how they impacted people had changed. This arguable misconception likely impacted the finding that his plea was informed.
There was also important information before the BC Supreme Court judge that the accused had been diagnosed with autism and ADHD. The court appears to have failed to consider how his diagnoses affected his understanding of the information on the form or his ability to retain it when making the decision to plead guilty and seek a fine reduction.
Informed Pleas, Disability, and Systemic Implications
This case holds significant importance, both personally for Mr. Dancho, due to the “crushing” financial burden of the Driver Penalty Point Premium, but it also has broader legal implications. The proper legal standard for withdrawing guilty pleas, particularly in traffic court, is significant. Most guilty pleas in traffic court happen without the advice of counsel and without being fully informed of all the potential consequences associated with the ticket.
This case will help to clarify what evidence and inferences judges can rely on regarding uninformed pleas. The merits of appeals from guilty pleas made via “Violation Ticket Statements” are significant as these forms are used dozens of times every week in British Columbia.
Whether boilerplate forms ensure a truly “informed” plea, especially without legal advice is a significant question. And whether there could be improvements to the forms in the future may hinge on the outcome of this case. This decision allows the court to examine this important questions surrounding informed guilty pleas to traffic tickets and systemic barriers to justice, especially in the traffic court system.
