Last week we told you about Kyla’s BC Supreme Court success where the Court ruled that the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (AKA RoadSafetyBC) did not have the power to grant indefinite extensions of the time to render a decision in IRP cases.
Instead of making the system more fair, they made it less fair. And when asked about one tiny thing they could do to make it more fair, they refuse to do it.
There was a lot of discussion in the BC legislature and committee about that case, and about the overall backlog of over 1000 cases in the RoadSafetyBC adjudication office. Mike Farnworth, who is the Justice Caucus House Leader for the NDP had a lot of questions for the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, Mike Morris, about the backlog of decisions and what the BC Government plans to do as a result of this court ruling.
We found the Solicitor General’s response very interesting. You can read the House Blues from May 12, 2016 here. One thing to note: Sam MacLeod, Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, was present in and sitting right next to the Solicitor General as he responded to the questions from MLA Farnworth.
Charter Arguments:
The Solicitor General attempted to justify the backlog by indicating that the adjudicators are starting to deal with Charter arguments in their decisions. We were incredulous when we read this. Our office currently has several judicial reviews pending before the BC Supreme Court where the adjudicators have refused to consider Charter arguments. This is all notwithstanding the fact that the BC Government told the Supreme Court of Canada that you can argue your Charter rights were violated in your IRP review hearing.
We tried to hold them to that, and they backed away from it.
Adjudicators are not considering Charter arguments. They never have, and they aren’t starting to now. That statement was simply wrong. You’d think that the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, sitting there, would correct the Solicitor General, but from a review of the transcript it appears that he allowed this wrong information to be conveyed to the public.
Reasons for the Extensions:
The Solicitor General also commented that the adjudicators, in response to the decision were now giving reasons for the extensions of time. This was what the Solicitor General said on Thursday. The Superintendent of Motor Vehicles again did not correct this or interrupt to provide clarification. On Friday, we expected to receive reasons on any extension letter we were given. We got at least four letters from various adjudicators at RoadSafetyBC extending the time to render a decision in recent cases or granting a further extension in cases where an extension had already been taken.
Care to guess how many of those extensions gave reasons for the extension? If you guessed zero, you’re sensing the same pattern we are: the Government says they are doing one thing when in reality they are not doing it at all.
Seven Days to Apply for Review:
It’s almost as though the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. The Solicitor General appears to believe that things are functioning lawfully and constitutionally at RoadSafetyBC, while the Courts continue to find that cases are not being handled correctly.
Just look at the response of Government to the case finding that there is no jurisdiction to extend the seven-day limitation period to file for review. The Court said that it would be appropriate for the Legislature to allow for extensions. At the time, when confronted with the Court’s comments the Justice Minister said that she would make the system more fair. Instead of allowing for fairness by giving a mechanism for extensions, the legislation was amended to put a burden on the driver to prove their case and the RoadSafetyBC office implemented a policy to refuse to give disclosure until the application for review and Government filing fee is paid.
In response to questions from MLA Farnworth, the Solicitor General simply said they won’t be entertaining a change to the seven-day period of time.
Instead of making the system more fair, they made it less fair. And when asked about one tiny thing they could do to make it more fair, they refuse to do it. The Justice Minister said they’d make the process more fair, while the RoadSafetyBC office took active steps to make it less fair. Left hand, have you even heard of the right hand? Do you see what it’s doing?
So What About the Backlog:
Besides all of this, when asked specifically about the backlog, the Solicitor General indicated that they are hiring more staff and they expect the backlog to be cleared up within a year.
In our view, a year is far too long for the hundreds of drivers who have been waiting for decisions now for two years. And we’re sure the public agrees. No driver who is forced to apply for review within only 7 days should have to wait more than 365 days for their decision. The whole point of the IRP law is that it is immediate. To say they won’t have the system back to “immediacy” for a year is an affront to justice.
Also disturbing was that the Solicitor General twisted the numbers claiming it’s about 1% of the whole. In fact, it’s closer to 8% of disputed IRPs currently undecided.
Don’t bother going to the BC Government if you’re looking for straight answers.