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.
The BC Supreme Court rendered a decision today that we've been waiting for concerning old Immediate Roadside Prohibitions. This affects anyone who had an IRP under version 1, where the hearing took place after June 30, 2012. This will be good news for a number of people. The important decision on adjourned IRP hearings confirms what we argued in each of these cases: the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (now RoadSafetyBC) had no jurisdiction to conduct hearings under IRP scheme version 1 after June 30, 2012. Some background: The first version of the Immediate Roadside Prohibition law was ruled unconstitutional with regards to...Continue reading
Even lawyers like us, who deal with RoadSafetyBC each day, find this particular government office an unanswered puzzle. You may recall that back in May the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles officially changed its name to RoadSafetyBC. The name change, although presumably intended to express clarity of purpose, seems to further highlight the contradictory nature of their purpose. The name expresses very clearly that this is a government office that advocates for road safety. Although it's a laudable goal, should it be the role of a government office that is also responsible for adjudication of disputes between individuals...Continue reading
We received some emails and calls since our first blog post on the IRP scheme version 2 court challenge asking how these court cases may affect Warn Immediate Roadside Prohibition cases. If you're up to date with the main court challenges to the IRP scheme, you may already know that the Sivia decision held that IRPs for Fail under the first version of the law are unconstitutional. The Government went back and re-wrote the law, claiming that the new version (IRP 2.0) fixes the problems with the old one. In mid July we were part of a team of lawyers who conducted...Continue reading
As we explained earlier, we were involved in the challenge to the second version of the Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme. The hearing took place just over a week ago in BC Supreme Court sitting in Victoria. IRP 2.0 is now in the hands of the Court. Of course, the first version of the scheme was found unconstitutional by the Court when it came to 90-day IRPs for blowing "Fail" and the law was re-drafted. The Court decisions regarding the first version are still under appeal so everything could be upset by later rulings on the first version. For example, if the...Continue reading
Few people are aware that there was a challenge to the IRP scheme version 2. We didn't talk about it here on our blog because we thought it would be inappropriate to publicly discuss it before the hearing took place. However, the hearing is now over and so we're now happy to report what's been going on. The challenge Back on November 30, 2011, the first version of the Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme was found unconstitutional in a BC Supreme Court decision called Sivia v. The Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. The Court in that case identified several failings with the IRP scheme,...Continue reading