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 38)

Now is the time to appeal your IRP review decision

Time to appeal your IRP

As we explained in the last blog post, many people who disputed an Immediate Roadside Prohibition and lost at the tribunal level are now in a good position to succeed because of recent BC Supreme Court rulings. Now is the time to appeal your IRP review decision because the rulings will apply to many, perhaps most, of the decisions made by the OSMV going as far back as 2010. If you're successful, it means the IRP comes off your record and the BC Government will write you a cheque. Here's how we're doing it: Getting started: How we appeal your IRP...

Continue reading

What this big IRP Court decision means to you

Happy about the Big IRP Court decision

The court decision from last Friday was the really big IRP news that we'd been waiting for since last summer. We think it's the most important Supreme Court IRP decision so far because it has the greatest chance of relieving the greatest number of people from their IRP. Now it's time to explain what this big IRP court decision means to you. In the Wilson case, the court ruled that in order for an officer to issue a "Warn" IRP, (i.e. 3, 7 or 30 days on the basis of a "Warn" blow on an ASD) the officer had to have...

Continue reading

B.C. Supreme Court takes another swipe at drunk-driving enforcement

The famous Kyla Lee

The province’s tough anti-drunk driving program has taken another blow after a B.C. Supreme Court decision that could see thousands of immediate driving prohibitions set aside. Justice Jane Dardi ruled in oral reasons Friday that the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles has the responsibility to overturn any prohibition issued by a police officer who hasn’t provided evidence that the driver’s abilities were affected by alcohol, even if they blew a “warn” or “fail” in a roadside breathalyzer test. Vancouver lawyer Kyla Lee argued the case on behalf of Wendy Richardson, a driver who received an immediate 90-day roadside prohibition after blowing a “fail”...

Continue reading

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