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 37)

Really Big IRP News – Wilson is the Law

Big IRP News

Thousands of people will be affected by this. Today at 9:00 a.m. the BC Supreme Court rendered its decision in Wendy Richardson v. The Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, confirming that the decision in Wilson v. The Superintendent of Motor Vehicles is the law with respect to 90-day IRPs issued on the basis of an ASD Fail. This is really big news. What this means is that IRPs issued by a police officer who did not have the correct opinion properly expressed must be revoked by the tribunal upon review. This has now been confirmed as having been a ground for review of...

Continue reading

Look at the evidence, then decide

Look at the evidence - make your own decision

The BC Supreme Court decision in Kenyon v. the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles has people in the BC Government all upset. In that particularly insightful decision, the BC Supreme Court Justice says a lot of smart things including that, in his opinion, the adjudicators at the OSMV are "attempting to rationalize desired results." He notes a disturbing pattern. He says that normally the Courts need to give tribunals a high degree of deference. But then he says that the deference is "misplaced" with the OSMV tribunal because of the nature of the tribunal, and because of this disturbing pattern. The...

Continue reading

A good decision

Good IRP judicial review decision

"It must be recognized that the scheme the Superintendent administers is meant to deter drinking and driving by the imposition of serious penalties on those who do not meet the standard set by the legislation. Within constitutional limits, it is the duty of courts to vindicate such legislation. If, however, the legislation supplements the imposition of penalties with the terrors of arbitrary state processes and foregone reviews, it is the duty of the courts to rigorously address those deficiencies and not to shield them." (Kenyon v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2014 BCSC 168) As lawyers dealing with the IRP...

Continue reading

Judge criticizes standards of proof used for roadside prohibitions

Proof used for roadside prohibitions

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mark McEwan has torn a strip off the province’s anti-drunk-driving scheme, quashing an Immediate Roadside Prohibition handed to a drunk, naked man in a van who claimed not to have keys for the vehicle. In a judicial review, he criticized as “specious” and “illogical” a Superintendent of Motor Vehicles adjudicator’s ruling upholding the 90-day suspension. But more than that, McEwan indicted the entire appeal process. “The statutory regime under which the Superintendent’s delegates operate subtracts most of the means by which credibility can be tested,” said the justice, who has cast a gimlet eye in previous decisions on...

Continue reading

Murray fallout – check your IRP disclosure

Murray fallout

As we reported January 24, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the application for leave to appeal the decision of the BC Court of Appeal in Murray. It's been interesting to see how things are playing out. The Murray fallout is significant, which tells us a little about why the BC Government was willing to spend big money (taxpayers' money) to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. If you received an IRP at any point after June 15, 2012, you should check your IRP disclosure. You may be the lucky beneficiary of our work in the...

Continue reading

Imperfect police

The police make mistakes

We are often stunned by the disclosure we obtain from Freedom of Information requests. We find horrible things like police concocting evidence to substantiate IRPs, Government employees doing things absolutely contrary to the law and almost every day we see evidence of incompetency across the board. Lawyers like ourselves who are in court practically every day become accustomed to police incompetence. We're not intolerant. We expect imperfect police officers because nobody is perfect. We're humans too. There are some really wonderful police officers in BC. Unfortunately, there are also some really imperfect police officers out there and every day there are...

Continue reading

The first IRP case at the Supreme Court of Canada

Supreme Court of Canada

On Thursday, January 23, 2014, the decision was rendered in the first IRP case at the Supreme Court of Canada. We're celebrating the decision and the quality of our work and contribution to the case. Followers of our blog may recall that back in August 2013, the BC Court of Appeal confirmed an earlier decision regarding the requirement of the police to submit a sworn report in connection with an IRP. Of course, the first version of the IRP scheme was found unconstitutional with respect to Fail IRPs. The second version was introduced to address the Charter violations of the first...

Continue reading