Vancouver Criminal Law

OUR LOCATIONS:

Vancouver: 604 685 8889
Richmond: 604 370 3050
Surrey: 604 593 8580
Victoria: 250 384 0100
Nanaimo: 250 754 9558
Kelowna: 250 860 2766
Kamloops: 250 372 3448
Fort McMurray: 780 750 7588
Prince George: 250 564 8835

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2016 Acumen Law Corporation.
All Rights Reserved.

Call 24 Hrs

604 685 8889

Call Us For Free Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Locations
 

Blog

Vancouver Criminal Law Blog
Acumen Law Corporation > Blog (Page 11)

Two false Fails

Two false fails

During the hearing at the Supreme Court of Canada into the first version of the IRP scheme, Justice Moldaver mentioned that a second ASD test more or less eliminates the possibility of an inaccurate reading carrying the day. It wasn't something any of the lawyers picked up to explain. As far as we're concerned, this is a significant problem with the Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme. The simple fact is that it is not extraordinary to get two false Fails in a row.[pullquote]Very important is to understand that even a tiny drop in your mouth can be expected to produce very...

Continue reading

Do I really have to blow? Part 2

Do I really have to blow part 2

When I wrote the last blog post, do I really have to blow, I had a particular case in mind that had come across my desk just days earlier. The driver in that case had purportedly refused to blow. The passenger made a video of what transpired after the original ASD demand. It was clear to me that the discussion at the roadside undermined the requirement to blow. The normal answer to the question "do I really have to blow in the breathalyzer" would be yes, but in this case there was a good reason to refuse. The question for...

Continue reading

Do I really have to blow? Part 1

Do I really have to blow

People often ask me "do I really have to blow?" The answer was simple before the IRP scheme became the law in BC. With a criminal investigation, if you blow and the police broke the law (failed to properly follow the law) in getting you to blow, chances are good that you'd be acquitted of criminal charges flowing from the roadside breath sample. With an IRP it's a lot different. An illegal ASD breath demand has not been a basis to revoke a Fail IRP. So it's complex. But the question remains...

Continue reading

IRP appeal? We win the most

IRP Appeal - We win the most

Each month we count up the winning IRP appeal decisions from RoadSafetyBC to see where we stand. For as far back as we have records, going back now well over 2 years, each month we win the most IRP appeal hearings of any law firm in British Columbia. It's a great track record.[pullquote]It doesn’t matter where you are in British Columbia, if you have an IRP you just need to give us a call.[/pullquote] This week we obtained the statistics for April 2015. We succeeded in more than 5 times as many IRP appeal hearings as the next most successful law...

Continue reading

Our law office in Victoria

Law Office in Victoria

We’ve opened a law office in Victoria BC. Acumen Law Corporation’s newest office is located in downtown Victoria at 1529 Amelia Street. That puts us 2 minutes from the Victoria courthouse, government offices and the Victoria Police. It’s good location to serve our clients and follow through on some of our plans.[pullquote]Sacha Roudette is now part of the most successful IRP DUI firm in all of BC working at our new Victoria law office.[/pullquote] About a year ago we decided that we needed to increase our presence on Vancouver Island particularly with respect to Immediate Roadside Prohibition defence. As far as...

Continue reading

Sarah Leamon: Bill C-51 is the wrong answer to terrorist threats

C51 and terrorist threats

The Canadian Incident Database recently confirmed that in the last 54 years, there have been about 1,800 terrorist threats involving Canada. A pretty jarring statistic, isn’t it? I can admit that when I first read it, I was surprised. As a Canadian, I don’t often associate the words “Canada” and “terrorism” with one another. As peace-keeping country with an international reputation for being friendly, mild-mannered, and overly polite, Canada doesn’t really lend itself to becoming a “terror target”—and yet the statistics seem to say otherwise. Or do they? If we break that number down, we’ll quickly discover that 1,800 threats over the...

Continue reading

More great lawyers

More great lawyers

We've been very worried about steps taken by the BC Government to eliminate justice. As lawyers we find this particularly abhorrent because our justice system is the source of the freedoms we enjoy and the collective understanding we have about the rights of individuals in a democracy.[pullquote]Hard work is simply that, and not every lawyer is capable of doing the work at the level we need while also being creative.[/pullquote] There may be no point in fighting the elimination of justice. Over the last 5 year we've seen similar steps taken by the Conservatives in Ottawa and in a number of...

Continue reading

Fairness at IRP hearings

Fairness at IRP hearings is nonexistent

At the May 19, 2015, Supreme Court of Canada hearings into the first version of the Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme, the Government took a position that the RoadSafetyBC tribunal could provide a remedy under section 7 of the Charter of Rights. The lawyer for the Government said that fairness at IRP hearings could be raised before the adjudicators. [pullquote]At our office we don't hang our hat on any Charter argument because we knew of the instructions to their adjudicators.[/pullquote] We've been doing IRP review hearings since the law was introduced and this is the first we've heard of this. In speaking of...

Continue reading

How it went down: IRPs at the Supreme Court of Canada

IRPs at the Supreme Court of Canada

Seven heavy-duty judges, cameras and a very impressive room filled with lawyers. Kyla was the first to step up and speak to the Court. It was an impressive sight seeing how it went down when we finally got to discuss IRPs at the Supreme Court of Canada.[pullquote]We think the lawyers on both sides made their best efforts before the Court to advance their arguments. Still, we can always imagine a better method of sorting this out.[/pullquote] Our first impression was that we got out the essential points and the Court seemed to understand our concerns with the scheme. The next day...

Continue reading