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 8)

The Victoria Papers

RoadSafetyBC

Despite the fuss concerning the Panama Papers, most of us already suspected or knew that the very rich were using exotic business structures to avoid paying taxes. So the fact that the rich avoid paying taxes by using off-shore banks and law offices came as no surprise.[pullquote]If there is one particular word to describe the Christy Clark government it is combative. [/pullquote] Similarly, when we first looked at the Victoria Papers, we were not surprised to see a discussion and email exchange involving lawyers, supervisors and an adjudicator that went beyond the lawyer’s role as legal adviser by purporting to influence...

Continue reading

Interview on the Kash Heed show re the ‘independence’ of RoadSafetyBC’s tribunal

problems with breathalyzers

Today on The Kash Heed Show, we had the pleasure of having an engaging and informative conversation with Paul Doroshenko, a criminal lawyer from Acumen Law Corporation.[pullquote]Acumen Law is “disclosing what’s going on behind the scenes” and are using it in defence of their clients.[/pullquote] The Attorney General lost a recent suit against Acumen Law relating to a Freedom of Information request from Acumen, and now there has been some dispute regarding 19 pages of a document released to the law corporation, and the government wants it back. Doroshenko has made it clear that won’t be the case. In his words,...

Continue reading

Really big IRP news coming

Really big IRP news coming

We've been sitting on some really big IRP news for the last few months and we weren't allowed to tell you about it. At this point we can give you some of the information, but you'll need to come back to see the rest because right now we can only use this secret information to help our clients. But it's amazing. It will blow your mind.[pullquote]We are on fire and we're going to blow the lid off of this.[/pullquote] Cast your mind back to November, 2015. We received disclosure from a Freedom of Information request that Kyla made in the summer....

Continue reading

What’s their problem?

In a recent blog post we promised to offer our theory to explain why the Government keeps coming at us, and keeps coming up with new ways to challenge our successes.[pullquote]We’ve run unconventional arguments in BC Supreme Court and we’ve succeeded. And we challenge any bad decision this Government makes.[/pullquote] There’s a very simple answer: we are very effective lawyers, and good at what we do. We've invested a lot into being unusually successful at what we do. We purchase breathalyser equipment, including the same devices used by the police, and experiment with it. We attend conferences around North America, including taking...

Continue reading

Don’t trust the breathalyzer?

Trust the breathalyzer?

Regularly we represent clients who refused to blow because they don't trust the breathalyzer. We get it. We don't trust the breathalyzer either, generally speaking. But as a strategy to deal with the police in a DUI investigation, refusing to blow because you don't trust the breathalyzer is a mistake. Here's why.[pullquote]How many people blew into this breathalyzer in the weeks and months before they identified this problem? Nobody knows.[/pullquote] Don't trust the breathalyzer The breathalyzers we use in BC for Immediate Roadside Prohibitions were never intended be relied on for the basis of punishment. They're described as "Approved Screening Devices" because...

Continue reading

Ian Mulgrew: FOI a sham when it comes to anti-drunk-driving law

FOI a Sham

Freedom of Information in this province is becoming a farce when a request for material on anti-impaired driving measures produces little more than “Good morning” salutations. About a year ago the B.C. government introduced changes to the controversial Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme that allows the superintendent of motor vehicles to rely on its own “technical materials” in dismissing a motorist’s defence. The superintendent’s office now can prepare evidence and use it to reject submissions from drivers appealing the tough penalties handed out by police. The law allows the “independent” adjudicators, who work for the government, to rely on “technical, medical or scientific evidence...

Continue reading

The secret of how they decide your IRP

The Government Doesn’t Want you to Know How They Decide Your IRP

The results of a request we made for RoadSafetyBC documents shows clearly that the Government doesn’t want you to know how they decide your IRP. You may remember that the Government amended the IRP scheme to allow the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles to rely on his own self-made evidence, called “technical materials” about a year ago.[pullquote]When do citizens have the right to know the case against them? Isn’t that a principle of a fair hearing?[/pullquote] You may also remember that the Government wrote the law so that the Superintendent could do this in response to “issues raised by the applicant,” or...

Continue reading

No slack for amateurs

No slack for amateurs at IRP hearings

It's important to remember, if you're charged with an offence or you've been issued an IRP, that the Government is your adversary. They're not out to help you, they don't want you to succeed and in fact, from their perspective your desire for justice is an impediment to their goals. The Government is your opponent.[pullquote]You might think you have a great defence to an IRP. You might decide it's so good that...

Continue reading

Establishing facts in an IRP case

Missing evidence

Crucial in any litigation is establishing facts. In criminal law a defence lawyer may simply need to call into question the facts that the prosecutor is attempting to prove. Not so in Immediate Roadside Prohibition cases. Establishing facts in an IRP case is much more complex and failure to do it right is often the difference between success and failure on review.[pullquote]Do-it-yourselfers beware.[/pullquote] On Tuesday I was in BC Supreme Court when Kyla received another successful decision in an IRP judicial review. Her client tried to do his own IRP review hearing before the RoadSafetyBC tribunal. He had great facts and...

Continue reading

Bad taste in my mouth

Bad taste in my mouth

Back in January, a challenge was made to some unsuccessful IRP decisions. What had happened — and some of our readers were in this situation — was that following the Wilson and Richardson decisions from the BC Supreme Court, the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles stopped rendering decisions.[pullquote][T]he circumstantial evidence referred to by the petitioner leaves a bad taste in the mouth which simply does not go away on the basis of a consideration of all of the evidence.[/pullquote] Almost everyone who received an IRP and made arguments based on Wilson and Richardson received a letter from the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles...

Continue reading