VANCOUVER CRIMINAL & DRIVING LAWYERS

EXPERIENCED LAWYERS. EXCEPTIONAL RESULTS.

CRIMINAL LAW

Filkow Law is a group of respected criminal lawyers in Vancouver, Richmond, Kelowna, Surrey, & Abbotsford, with 50+ years of collective expertise with outstanding results.

Sexual Offences

Criminal Driving

Drug & Money Offences

Assault Offences

Driving Law

Filkow Law is a group of leading driving lawyers in Vancouver, Richmond, Kelowna, Surrey, & Abbotsford, with 50+ years of collective expertise with exceptional results.

Driving While Prohibited

Licence Prohibitions

ICBC Breaches & Car Accidents

Immediate Roadside Prohibitions

TOP LEGAL COUNSEL

Filkow Law is a highly respected and well-established law firm in British Columbia. Its lawyers are recognized for achieving outstanding results in criminal and driving cases.

Clients benefit from the lawyers’ breadth of legal expertise, their extensive connections within the legal system and the collective resources of the firm.

Client Testimonials

"I can’t thank you enough for the news Kevin delivered to me this am. Obviously I couldn’t be more pleased. “you decidedly removed the noose from the hang man’s grip that was hovering above my head for these many months. I have never felt more powerless, as well as shameful. You were both wonderful to work with. What a team! Gracious and powerful at the same time. Thank you also on behalf of my husband."

- R.D.

"Mr K Filkow is in law business since I was teenager and at 45+ yrs old I would pick him over any other criminal lawyer cause he has never let me or any of my family or friends down in 25+ years we have been closely working with his firm only as everyone knows we had very big circle of friends and he always managed to get us through our hard times on way or the other. Thank you kindly Mr Filkow for keeping us safe with your professional services."

- K.D.

I could not recommend the lawyers at Filkow Law enough! The entire team is highly professional and knowledgeable. They answered all of my questions honestly and were always quick to respond. I always knew what to expect. They were upfront and honest about their fees and they stuck to their word. As with anything, there are no guarantees, but I felt as though they worked hard for me and did everything they could to get me the best possible result. I am very satisfied with the service that I received and would not hesitate to refer my friends and family to Filkow Law for assistance.

- A.B.

Kevin and his team were amazing. They answered all my questions and made sure I knew what was happening at all times. They checked up on the kids and I and just made sure I was alright at least every month or so. In the beginning I was so nervous but after speaking with Kevin and his team, they made me feel so comfortable I just knew I was going to be taken care of. If you ever want the best go to filkow law, you won’t be disappointed...

- J.B.

I am so grateful for the effort, care, and support from the Filkow Law team. Everything I left in their hands was taken care of quickly and efficiently. Not only are they fantastic at what they do, they truly care about their clients. I cannot thank their team enough for their endless efforts, always keeping me updated, and answering all my questions thoroughly without any hesitation. I am very pleased with my outcome and the service I received. My case resolved with 100% success. Thank you Filkow Law.

- B.Y.

Where do I start FILKOW law group is unstoppable over the many years I called him he pulled right threw for me and my family I highly recommend him I promise you he will do the same for you and your family God bless him and his law firm.

- J.S.

You are a wise and seasoned professional, Kevin. I feel fortunate to have been connected with you. You know your stuff. I thank you for your excellent work and professionalism. I recommend you most highly.

- B.M.

Merry Christmas And Happy New Year Kevin, when I reflect on the last year I can't help but be reminded of the kindness and generosity you have shown to me and my family and the New start you have given to my son. It has been an absolute pleasure knowing you and knowing there are still good people in this world. Thank you again and again for helping my young man back on the path of doing what he was raised to be, not be a follower.

- D.H.

My case just finished and I wanted to thank Mr. Filkow I don't want to detail the circumstances of my case because they still make me very upset. But there were serious allegations against me which have recently been dismissed meaning the case has been dropped. Mr. Filkow was an excellent lawyer from beginning to end - he is very smart and his instincts are great. He also has a very good team - Mike and Anna were very helpful along the way and were very patient with me. So I do want to thank Mr. Filkow and his team for taking care of me and my family - it meant the world to us.

- L.P.

Amazing service with even better results. Filkow law handheld my driving case without flaw. If you get pulled over... call Filkow. One meeting and everything was taken care of for me. All I had to do was answer my phone to receive the good news. Saved me thousands of dollars and lots more. True professionals. 6 stars not 5.

- K.P.

From my first phone call with Kevin Filkow, to meeting Anthony Robinson, to calls with Anthony's assistant... Amazing! I could not have gone through the past 2 years without them. Anthony is professional and thorough making sure I was okay every step of the way. I can't thank Anthony enough for his hard work, understanding my needs and making sure I wasn't stressed unnecessarily. Thank you so much!!

- C.N.

Thank you to Mr. Kevin Filkow, Ms. Paula Cooper and Filkow law team. This was very stressful time for my family and I. We went to many law offices and we decided on Mr. Kevin Filkow as our lawyer. His plan of action and predilection for case made the decision as our lawyer. Anytime we arrived at the office he made my family and I comfortable. His work ethics, engagement and performance got me through this difficult time. Again I thank you.

- M.V.

- J.S.

When I first realized that I would be needing a lawyer to deal with my case I knew I couldn’t just trust anyone with my future, I had to find the best of the best, the top elite lawyer to take control and guide the case to the direction of victory. Ermina at Filkow Law Group was absolutely outstanding in every way, very responsive to emails and phone calls, she would answer any and all questions/concerns I had - making me feel heard, respected, and explained all the details. She worked very hard on getting my case solved to the point of no criminal record thus changing my future and life in the most positive way. Thank you to Ermina and Filkow Law they truly care and know how to get the job done, period. If you want to feel safe and secure in your case, there is no one else but Filkow to make that happen. Thanks again to Ermina, such a blessing.

- R.B.

Kevin and his team have been exceptional in their ability to help me over the years. They have shown tremendous work ethic and truly aspire to go above and beyond! Thank you Filkow Law for everything!

- R.J.

Honestly these guys worked so hard for me and I’m truly grateful for everything they have done. Really friendly firm and look out for your best interest. Kevin and Anthony are top notch!. I would recommend filkow law to anyone who is in search of the best.

- J.W.

Call Now

604-558-8778

Toll-Free Number

1-855-558-8778

Text Us

604-721-5770

If you need legal assistance, give us a call or simply text us your police, court or driving documents to our respective text line.

Recent Blogs

Nov 09, 2021

The Vicious Cycle of Driving Prohibitions in BC

It is not uncommon for drivers in British Columbia to get caught in a vicious cycle of driving prohibitions. This is particularly common with novice drivers, and it can cause some people to be unable to graduate to a full licence for 5-10 years. This cycle of driving prohibitions BC can have compounding negative consequences for a driver’s employment, familial obligations, and financial well-being.

The driving prohibition cycle begins with an initial prohibition issued by RoadSafetyBC, the government body that monitors the driving records of licence holders in British Columbia. Drivers are brought to RoadSafetyBC’s attention when traffic tickets or alcohol or drug infractions are added to driving records, subject to certain thresholds.

Class 7 or 8 drivers (N or L) receive the most scrutiny. According to the Driver Improvement Program Policy and Guidelines, Class 7 drivers can be prohibited for any single ticket carrying two or more demerit points, or any single alcohol or drug-related infraction.

Drivers with full licences (Classes 1 – 6) are given more latitude but are still monitored. For example, two high-risk offences (excessive speeding or cell phone tickets) within a certain time period will result in a lengthy prohibition.

Prohibitions are absolute and measured in months, not weeks. Prohibitions from RoadSafetyBC will not allow certain hours where you can drive for work or school.

Following the conclusion of a driving prohibition, a driver will be on probation. RoadSafetyBC will scrutinize the driver’s record for the next two years, or until the driver gets their full licence. If further traffic, or alcohol or drug-related infractions are added to the driving record, another prohibition will issue. Further, a subsequent prohibition is almost certain to be longer in duration than the first prohibition. In this way, the vicious cycle of prohibitions continues. The driving prohibitions get longer and the probationary period starts all over. Driving during a driving prohibition will lead to a driving while prohibited charge which are dealt with in criminal court.

While a lawyer experienced in driving matters can be of assistance at any time, the best way to avoid any disruption in your ability to drive, and to avoid falling into the cycle of prohibitions, is to obtain legal advice at the earliest stage. If you have received a driving prohibition or have been caught driving while prohibited, call Filkow Law for help.

Read Now

Oct 22, 2021

The New Impaired Driving Laws: What Is Not Being Said

The following paper was written by Filkow Law’s Kevin Filkow in response to the BC Government’s amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) in 2010. These amendments are now the law in BC and the issues outlined by Mr. Filkow persist to this day.

This paper was written for The Advocate, a leading law journal published by the Vancouver Bar Association.

If you are in need of legal assistance, call Filkow Law today.

The Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General issued a News Release on April 27, 2010[1]. The Release trumpeted that “The province is introducing Canada’s most immediate and severe impaired driving penalties to save lives, curb repeat offenders and give police more enforcement tools.”

Subsequent to this Release and as an extension of same, the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles issued bulletins spelling out the penalties which will be part of the new regime. A comparison of the current and new penalties can be found at the foot of this article[2].

Fundamental to the new regime will be an unequivocal acceptance of a police officer’s report of what took place at a roadside stop upon a breathalyzer test being administered or upon one being refused. If the reported reading is a fail or if the officer reports a refusal, the new penalties take effect immediately with very limited administrative appeal rights with no true prospect of success. The ostensible intention, as amplified below, is not to engage drinking drivers in the judicial process except in a limited number of situations.

The Backgrounder[3] to the Province’s Release stresses: “Major amendments to impaired driving sections of the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) will ensure impaired drivers caught in BC face instant loss of their driving privileges (90 days) and impoundment of their vehicles (30 days).” There are other corollary mandatory requirements, i.e. completing the Responsible Driver Program and installing an ignition interlock device which must be utilized for a minimum of one year. Both these programs are costly. They are without exceptions for hardship or otherwise. In addition, the financial penalties are substantial. For example, a driver with no relevant history failing a breath sample at roadside or refusing to provide a sample will face minimum fines and fees of approximately $4060.

The Release does add that failing or refusing drivers may also face criminal charges.

What the Release does not say is that there is every indication that criminal charges will only be laid in particularly aggravated circumstances (such as an accident or where there is a prior related conviction) which going forward will be increasingly rare. The effect of this is that the overwhelming majority of drivers, tested under the new regime, will have no meaningful recourse to challenge what the police say took place at the roadside. The peace officer will record the reading of the Approved Screening Device (ASD) or alternatively will document the alleged refusal and then “the curtain drops.”

While right-minded citizens of British Columbia are acutely concerned about drinking and driving, there is every reason to be discomforted by this ‘machine type of justice.’ The ASD was intended to be a screening mechanism under the Criminal Code to assist a peace officer in evaluating the driver’s condition as to sobriety. The ASD does not have a record keeping or memory capacity. The instrument can be operated improperly. The new legislation, however, effectively allows the reading to be definitive. There is no opportunity to challenge the instrument, no opportunity to cross examine the officer as to the integrity of what occurred and no opportunity to challenge the manner in which the ASD was operated. An instrument intended only as a screening device is now elevated to a determinative role[4].

The new regime reposes extraordinary power and authority in a peace officer. Failure to allow for a criminal defence process disregards the unfortunate reality that there are zealous or wrongly disposed peace officers or officers who may mismanage the instrument or simply make a mistake. No cross-examination or scrutiny of the officer takes place under this regime.

What is not being said is that highly culpable behaviour such as driving while drunk will now largely be outside the criminal process. The Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles on its website[5] stresses that the “province is introducing changes to give BC the toughest provincial impaired driving legislation in the country. If you drink and drive after the new law comes into effect on September 20, 2010, you can count on penalties adding up to between $600 and $4060 – even if it’s the first time you’re caught – and more time off the road.”

The corollary of this new approach, though, is that in not facing criminal charges, the driver will not be exposed to the instructiveness of the criminal justice system. There is significant value in the experience of retaining counsel, facing a public record for criminal behaviour, facing denunciation, and, on some occasions, receiving thoughtful remarks from a presiding judge. There is an irony, a disconnect that behaviour which is such a serious threat to public safety, will now largely avoid the criminal process.

Also unspoken and related to the previous paragraph is that the province clearly intends to save serious treasury by allocating significantly less resources to what has been the criminal process, i.e. police investigations, Crown prosecutions and trials. Ostensibly, the motivation is to free up these resources to allocate to ‘more serious’ criminal behaviour. If that is so, the priorities are misguided. There is probably no form of criminal behaviour more pervasive than drunk driving. There is probably no criminal behaviour more capable of effective deterrence through public denunciation and the related process. It is also a reality that police officers should be investigating criminal behaviour; this behaviour should not be given diminished significance.

The volume and the cost of the impaired driving problem should not be a rationale for compromising individual rights and protections. There are no practical or genuine checks and balances under this new regime. Criminal law has always required a very high standard of proof and a compelling burden on the Crown to meet its case. What the Federal Government sees as criminal will now be something else – effectively an administrative regulatory matter. It would seem reasonable to expect that the new legislation will face a challenge in seeking to displace the federal criminal law power under s. 91 of the Constitutional Act.

What is not mentioned is that there will be a disparity between incidents where there is an ASD handy and those incidents where there is not. Any driver pulled over in the latter circumstances will likely be subject to the old regime and will in these limited cases have access to the criminal justice system.

Indicative of how far reaching is this philosophical change by the BC government is the Warning protocol. This Warning protocol will apply to drivers whose apparent readings are below the legal limit of .08% blood alcohol content and may not be demonstrating any signs of impairment.

As outlined above, a driver who fails (above .08%) or ‘refuses’ to provide an ASD sample will be given a 90-day suspension at roadside, will be subject to a one year Interlock Ignition program and financial penalties which amount to $4060. His or her vehicle will be impounded for 30 days. The Warn range is a reading of .05 to .08% (some ASDs are calibrated to .099%). This results in an immediate 3-day suspension, a 30-day impoundment and minimum fines and fees of about $600. This is for the first warn in 5 years. A second warn in the same period draws a 7-day suspension, a longer period of impoundment and minimum fines and fees of $760. A third time warning within 5 years carries with it a 30-day suspension, a 30-day impoundment, a one year Ignition Interlock program and a minimum financial penalty of $3650. Three beers within a two hour period would put virtually anyone in the Warn range. There is again no practical opportunity to challenge these consequential penalties and, in these cases, for not behaving in an illegal manner.

The province’s express rationale is that enforcement of drinking and driving offences will be far more expedient under the new regime. It characterizes the new regime as the toughest driving laws in the country. While the penalties under the new laws are certainly swift and severe, the intended approach avoids the criminal justice system and allows a matter of serious legal consequence to be technologically and summarily resolved at the instance of a peace officer whose fairness and ability are taken as a “given.” In this author’s view this departure from the honoured protections is a matter of concern. A better alternative would be to ensure greater resources as necessary to expedite the process which preserves the rights and protections of individuals.

[1] Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, News Release, 2010PSSG0026-000472, “B.C. INTRODUCES CANADA’S TOUGHEST IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS” (27 April 2010).

[2] See Appendix: Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, online: CURRENT and NEW Penalties Comparison Chart <http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/publications/docs/impaireddriving-currentandnewpenalties.pdf>.

[3] Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, Backgrounder, 2010PSSG0026-000472, ” B.C.’S IMPAIRED DRIVING LAW TO CHANGE” (27 April 2010).

[4] The Supreme Court of Canada held in R. v. Orbanski, [2005] S.C.J. No. 37, that there is no entitlement at the roadside to be advised of or to receive counsel as the evidence obtained would only go to the police officer’s reasonable grounds to make a breathalyzer demand. The new legislation extends that principle to a situation of a very different character.

[5] Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, online: Impaired Driving <http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/impaired-driving/index.htm>.

Read Now

Sep 24, 2021

Going to Court as a Witness in a Criminal Matter

Witnesses giving evidence or testifying in court is a fundamental part of the criminal justice system. A single witness can make or break a case.

Types of witnesses in a criminal matter

There are generally three kinds of witnesses: (1) eyewitnesses, (2) expert witnesses and (3) character witnesses. Eyewitnesses testify as to what they saw or heard. For example, if Mr. Jones saw someone break into a home, Mr. Jones would be an eyewitness who could give evidence about who and what he saw. Similarly, if Ms. Jones heard the sound of breaking glass, Ms. Jones would be an eyewitness who could provide evidence about what she heard. Both the prosecution and the defence can call an eyewitness to give evidence. After a witness has given their evidence, the other side will have an opportunity to cross-examine that witness.

Expert witnesses provide an opinion on an issue that is beyond the experience and knowledge of the judge or jury—for example, the diagnosis of a mental disorder or the cause of a motor vehicle accident. A judge must qualify expert witnesses before they are allowed to testify. Expert witnesses cannot give evidence as to whether they think an accused person is innocent or guilty, but their opinion can strongly impact the judge or jury.

Character witnesses may be called to speak to the good or bad character of a person. Character witnesses do not give evidence regarding the incident itself but rather their knowledge of a person’s reputation regarding certain character traits, such as honesty or morality. Generally, the Crown is prohibited from adducing evidence about an accused person’s character unless the accused brings it up first. For example, if Mr. Jones is accused of fraud, he might say that he would never commit a fraud because he is such an honest person. This would open the door for the Crown to bring in their own witnesses as to Mr. Jones’ bad character.

What qualifies a witness?

There are few qualifications for witnesses. A witness must be able to understand the nature of an oath or solemn affirmation and communicate evidence. In cases where a witness does not understand an oath or solemn affirmation, by reason of mental disorder or otherwise, they can still testify by a promise, to tell the truth. If a witness is 14 years or younger, they must be able to understand and respond to questions and promise to tell the truth.

What qualifies an expert witness?

Expert witnesses are subject to more qualifications than ordinary witnesses. The proposed expert witness must:

be relevant;
be necessary to help the judge or jury;
not be excluded by any other rule of evidence; and
must be “properly qualified.”

The necessity of an expert will depend on whether the opinion is outside the realm of ordinary human experience. Common areas where experts are required include:

accident reconstruction;
alcohol or drug analysis;
injury causation;
arson;
cell phone towers;
digital analysis (cellphones, computers, etc.)
social science
mental health; and
DNA.

The judge makes the final decision about whether an expert is qualified or not based on their education, training and experience.

What qualifies a character witness?

There are no special qualifications for character witnesses. If you are giving evidence of the accused’s character, you can only give testimony as to the general reputation of the accused for a certain character trait. Common traits are honesty and morality.

For example, if Mr. Jones is giving evidence about the character of the accused, he might testify to the following:

Mr. Jones’ own credibility and reputation;
Mr. Jones’ relationship and connection to the accused;
how Mr. Jones knows the general reputation of the accused in the community; and
the reputation of the accused is regarding a particular character trait.

Mr. Jones cannot give evidence about his personal opinion or specific good acts the accused has performed in the past unless those acts are demonstrative of the relevant character trait.

What if I incriminate myself in someone else’s trial?

As a witness, you can be compelled to answer a question even if it may incriminate you or establish your liability in a civil proceeding. However, that compelled testimony cannot be used in another proceeding against you except for prosecuting perjury or giving contradictory evidence. For example, if Mr. Jones testified that he remembered witnessing an assault because it happened near his favourite bar, and he had just finished drinking five beers before driving past the crime scene, the Crown cannot use that admission as evidence against Mr. Jones in a drinking and driving case against Mr. Jones. However, if there was an impaired driving case against Mr. Jones, and he testified that he only had one glass of wine, he can be cross-examined on his testimony from the other proceeding to show that he is not credible or deliberately gave a false statement under oath or both.

What if the accused is my spouse?

Every witness can be compelled to testify – even if the accused is their spouse. However, no person is required to disclose any communication made to them by their spouse during their marriage. For example, Ms. Jones could be compelled to answer questions about whether she saw her husband, Mr. Jones, damage their neighbour’s car. Ms. Jones could not be compelled to answer questions about whether Mr. Jones discussed his plans to damage their neighbour’s car with her.

Conclusion

Understanding the role of each witness is a vital part of trial preparation and strategy. The lawyers at Filkow Law have over 50 years of experience dealing with all types of witnesses. If you are in need of legal assistance, please feel free to give us a call.