Vancouver Criminal Law


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



Copyright 2018 Acumen Law Corporation.
All Rights Reserved.

Call 24 Hrs

604 685 8889

Call Us For Free Consultation





Vancouver Criminal Law Blog
Acumen Law Corporation > Blog (Page 19)

Do the ends justify the means?

Do the ends justify the means

Almost two years ago we exposed back room collusion to concoct evidence for CBSA officers in Immediate Roadside Prohibition investigations.[pullquote]It's a catastrophic failure of government to understand their obligation in a democracy. [/pullquote] This was the tip of the iceberg with respect to the covert shenanigans that take place in government offices dealing with the IRP scheme. It was important because it provided a glimpse into the mindset of these people. Essentially they've concluded that their goal (preserving the IRP scheme) is so important that they'll cross all sorts of ethical boundaries to that end. In other words, the mindset is...

Continue reading

A great way to start the New Year

New year, new clients to help

Something we don’t often talk about on our blog is how difficult it can be to do the type of work we do. We work long hours, many of which are thankless, fighting cases for our clients. We put our own money towards causes we believe in, like the Wilson appeal or the Murray case. There are lots of great days, but there are also the disappointing days when we don’t succeed.[pullquote]It was a funny happenstance meeting and I was pleased to be able to put a face to the name and voice on the other end of the phone.[/pullquote] People...

Continue reading

Creating an unfair IRP system

Unfair IRP system

We've held all along that the BC Government was never interested in fairness with the IRP scheme. All along they were creating an unfair IRP system while making public declarations that they were interested in advancing fairness. But it's all a lie. Fairness has nothing to do with it.[pullquote]The BC Government has never been interested in creating a fair IRP system. This is just another example. But it's not the best example. There's more.[/pullquote] Bad government behaves badly Consider this. As of today, RoadSafetyBC and ICBC will not give you YOUR DISCLOSURE in your Immediate Roadside Prohibition case unless you pay them...

Continue reading

Previous client of Sacha Roudette?

Previous client of Sacha Roudette

I mentioned at the end of the last blog post about how much I learned since starting at Acumen Law. Of course, before I started with Acumen, I was in the good position of already thoroughly knowing the law. I had been defending IRPs for years, making the written submissions for another law firm and I had a good success rate. As well, I was the lawyer in a number of the key IRP constitutional challenges including the case that went to the Supreme Court of Canada where the first version of the IRP law was found unconstitutional. So I...

Continue reading

Strategic appeals in IRP cases

Strategic appeals

We've had some tremendous ups and down in the last few months, particularly with respect to strategic appeals. We've received decisions from BC Supreme Court that appeared on the face to be a loss, but that got us exactly what we hoped with respect to our ability to appeal IRPs at the RoadSafetyBC hearing stage. We've received decisions that appear to be glorious precedent-setting successes but nevertheless change very little because they are confined to their facts.[pullquote]Having a number of lawyers working in concert, discussing cases, sharing information about police forces, collecting vast amounts of inside information and actually teaching...

Continue reading

B.C. court eases rules for appealing roadside suspensions

Immediate Roadside Prohibition specialist Kyla Lee

Court says B.C. superintendent of motor vehicle has the power to consider new evidence Read more: The B.C. Liberal government’s much-ballyhooed, tough-as-nails approach to drunk driving has again run afoul of the B.C. Supreme Court. In a 29-page decision, Justice Peter Voith sharply scolded the superintendent of motor vehicles for wrongly interpreting the law to prohibit drivers from introducing fresh evidence during an appeal of an immediate roadside prohibition. “Let us assume, for the moment, that the new evidence secured by the petitioner unequivocally established that the approved screening device used to secure a breath sample from him had been defective,” he said....

Continue reading

New evidence in an old IRP case

New evidence in an IRP case

One thing that has always bothered us about the Immediate Roadside Prohibition legislation is the fact that the timelines are too short to be able to mount a proper defence. The Application for Review must be filed within seven days, and there are no extensions. The decision must be rendered within twenty one days of the date you were pulled over, except if the Superintendent extends the time period. And in June, RoadSafetyBC unilaterally changed its policies so that after the hearing had ended, no more submissions could be provided. Even when they granted themselves long extensions of the time to...

Continue reading

The numbers speak for themselves

The numbers speak for themselves

A lot of people who phone our office are, understandably, concerned about getting the best lawyer for their IRP review. They want to know what the success rate is, and who is the best at defending IRP cases. The reality is that these are tough questions to answer. When we are wondering about who the best lawyer to defend an IRP case is, we look to the information that can be verified. The numbers speak for themselves.[pullquote]It’s one thing to talk the talk, and to have the shiny toys. It’s another thing entirely to be able to present a convincing and...

Continue reading

Update for IRPs outside the 7 days

7-days IRP

Today we received the decision in our challenges to RoadSafetyBC’s policy decision not to follow the Segers decision, and not to grant extensions when the 7-days are up to apply for review of a 90-day IRP. You can find the decision here.[pullquote]The judge was in the unpleasant position of being able to see an obvious unfairness perpetuated by a government and feeling bound by legal constraints causing her to be unable to do anything about it. [/pullquote] In short: the challenge was unsuccessful. If you miss your seven days, that’s it. For now. But why? Arguments on the 7-day extensions There were several arguments...

Continue reading

The review process is far from perfect

The RoadSafetyBC review process is far from perfect

You may remember our blog posts about the decision in Kenyon when it was first released: A good decision and Look at the evidence, then decide. We pointed out that the Government was very upset about the Kenyon case and its implications. So when we learned that Kenyon had been appealed, we weren’t surprised. Not one bit. You may also remember that the Government’s tactic all along has been to appeal almost every successful judicial review decision.[pullquote]It appears that the Court of Appeal saw through the Government’s end-run around fairness and objectivity in the review process[/pullquote] The Kenyon decision was appealed along...

Continue reading