Vancouver Criminal Law

OUR LOCATIONS:

Vancouver: 604 685 8889
Richmond: 604 370 3050
Surrey: 604 593 8580
Victoria: 250 384 0100
Kelowna: 250 860 2766
Fort McMurray: 780 750 7588

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

Cross your fingers for some IRP news

We are always thinking positive

You never know what the future holds. Of course, we try to maintain a positive outlook which is not always easy as an IRP lawyer. But we've got our fingers crossed for some IRP news. Over the years our attitude and outlook has improved because we made a lot of headway in our ongoing fight against the IRP laws. These days we're feeling pretty good. Sometimes we try to predict the future. As lawyers we do this all of the time. What surprises us is how often we have accurately predicted the future. Looking back at comments we've made here on our...

Continue reading

The accused: drunk driving lawyer in BC

Drunk driving lawyer in bc

We stand accused. In fact, we're guilty. We were reminded the other day that the reason we have the IRP scheme is the drunk driving lawyer in BC. And we're not just talking about any one of us in particular or the lawyers in our office per se, but the particular subspecies and members of that group. We're talking about the class or type of lawyers who defend drunk driving charges. If it were not for the drunk driving lawyer in BC, we would not have Immediate Roadside Prohibitions. That is true. Allow us to explain. In British Columbia there are...

Continue reading

IRP version 1 – important decision on adjourned IRP hearings

Version 1 IRP Important Decision

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

The role of RoadSafetyBC

The Role of RoadSafetyBC

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

Warn Immediate Roadside Prohibition

Warn Immediate Roadside Prohibition

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

IRP 2.0 court challenge

IRP 2.0 Court Challenge

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

Challenge to the IRP scheme version 2

Challenge to the IRP scheme version 2

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

Breathalyzer Malfunctions and Your Right to Know

Breathalyzer malfunctions

There are many things we do in pursuit of being the best IRP Lawyers. One of them is our Freedom of Information database. We regularly compel the police to disclose to us copies of maintenance and calibration records for approved screening devices by demanding the documents via the Freedom of Information and Access to Information laws. At this point we’ve accumulated thousands of pages of breathalyzer disclosure indicating all sorts of breathalyzer malfunctions. For a long time many police departments fought us on our requests. Some internal disclosure documents we have obtained show that the RCMP have actively tried to find...

Continue reading

Lawyers and the IRP scheme

Lawyers and the IRP scheme. But for lawyers, there would be almost no defences

We got the sense that the Government hates lawyers. We came to this conclusion because of the crappy legal aid funding situation, legislation the Government introduced that prohibits people from being represented by a lawyer in some circumstances and utterances on BC Government websites designed to discourage people from hiring a lawyer to defend their IRP. When it comes to lawyers and the IRP scheme, we think that RoadsafetyBC (the office formerly known as the OSMV) intended, hoped and expected to undermine the authority of lawyers so it would be easier to reject drivers at their IRP appeal hearing. They didn't...

Continue reading