Driving Law

Filkow Law is a leading driving law firm well-known for its exceptional results on all aspects of driving law and frequently consulted by legal professionals for advice. A driving prohibition can have devastating effects on one’s employment and family and can also have serious criminal, financial and insurance consequences.

The lawyers at Filkow Law have over 50 years of driving law experience and are highly regarded for their knowledge, expertise and excellent representation.

Driving is one of the most highly regulated areas of the law. Driving offences range from having a traffic ticket to an immediate roadside prohibition to dangerous and impaired driving to serious car accidents and pedestrian fatality cases. Driving prohibition can have devastating effects on one’s employment and family and can also have criminal and insurance consequences.

The lawyers at Filkow Law have successfully dealt with thousands of driving prohibition cases. If you are facing a driving prohibition, immediate roadside prohibition or a charge of driving while prohibited, call Filkow Law today.

For more information on our highlighted practice areas, click on any of the links below.

Driving While Prohibited

Criminal Code
Motor Vehicle Act

Licence Prohibitions

Notice of Prohibition
Notice of Intent to Prohibit
Driver Improvement Program

ICBC Breaches & Accidents

Drugs and alcohol
False statements
Fail to cooperate
ICBC Debt

Immediate Roadside Prohibitions

Fail
Refusal
Warning

Why did I get a driving prohibition from RoadSafetyBC?

RoadSafetyBC may prohibit you for a number of reasons, including the following:

you have an “unsatisfactory” driving record;
a police officer forwarded a “high-risk driving incident report” to RoadSafetyBC;
RoadSafetyBC determines you are medically “unable” or “unfit” to drive; and
for any other reason RoadSafetyBC considers to be in the public interest.

The most common reason for a prohibition is having an “unsatisfactory” driving record, which usually results from having too many points or high-risk offences.

What is the difference between a fully-licensed driver (Class 5) and a new driver (Class 7)?

Class 7 drivers are subject to certain restrictions. For example, new drivers cannot use electronic devices, have any alcohol or drugs in their body while driving, or have too many passengers. Learners cannot drive at all unless they have a properly qualified supervisor.

RoadSafetyBC treats Class 7 drivers who incur driving violations much more severely than experienced drivers.

What if I have an international driver’s licence?

RoadSafetyBC treats international drivers as new drivers. Because of this fact, a driver with an international licence will scrutinized more closely than a driver with a full BC driver’s licence. Even one ticket may result in a driving prohibition.

I have my full licence (Class 5). How many points am I allowed before I will be prohibited?

Fully-licensed (class 5) drivers who incur 15 or more points in a two-year period will likely be prohibited.

Fully-licensed drivers who are found guilty of two or more high-risk driving offences in a 12-month period, will likely be prohibited from driving – even if they have fewer than 15 points.

I am a new driver (Class 7). How many points am I allowed before I will be prohibited?

New drivers (class 7) who incur more than three points or even one high risk driving offence will likely be prohibited from driving.

What is considered a high-risk driving offence?

RoadSafetyBC designates the following offences as “high-risk”:

using an electronic device while driving;
excessive speeding;
driving without due care and attention; and
driving without consideration.

Because these offences are designated high-risk, it is particularly important to get advice from an experienced lawyer about the consequences.

I have a letter referring me to the Driver Improvement Program. What does that mean?

The Driver Improvement Program is RoadSafetyBC’s process of reviewing driving records and issuing, warning notices, probation notices and driving prohibitions. You can find more information on the program here. Learn more about driving prohibitions here.

I received a Notice of Intent to Prohibit. What does this mean?

A Notice of Intent to Prohibit advises you of RoadSafetyBC’s intention to prohibit you from driving for a period of time. The amount of time is specified in the letter. Learn more about how you could receive a driving prohibition here.

I have received a Notice of Intent to Prohibit Letter. What can I do?

The Notice of Intent letter gives you 21 days to submit a review of the intended prohibition. If a letter is submitted during this period, the decision to prohibit will be suspended until a final decision is made. We strongly recommend speaking to a lawyer to discuss your options.

If RoadSafetyBC already intends to prohibit me from driving. Why should I submit a request to review my prohibition within 21 days?

RoadSafetyBC may consider your hardship and may shorten or reduce your prohibition. Without a letter, all RoadSafetyBC sees is your driving record. Further, if you provide your submissions within the 21-day timeline, your prohibition will be put on hold until a decision is made. This may give you some more time to prepare for the prohibition.

I received a Notice of Prohibition. What does this mean?

A Notice of Prohibition advises you of RoadSafetyBC’s decision to prohibit you from driving for a period of time. The amount of time is specified in the letter.

How is a Notice of Prohibition different from a Notice of Intent to Prohibit?

A Notice of Intent to Prohibit advises you of RoadSafetyBC’s intention to prohibit you and provides you with 21 days to respond. On the other hand, a Notice of Prohibition advises you that RoadSafetyBC has prohibited you from driving, however the prohibition does not commence until you acknowledge the prohibition by signing it and returning it to RoadSafetyBC, or until a police officer serves you with it. In other words, the prohibition begins on the day you sign it and send it in or the day a police officer serves you.

I received a Notice of Prohibition but I am still driving. What will happen?

If you do not acknowledge your Notice of Prohibition, a police officer may serve you with the prohibition. If you are driving at the time the officer serves you, the officer may use their discretion to give you time to drive home before your prohibition commences.

What are the possible outcomes after I send my letter?

RoadSafetyBC will make one of three decisions: they will uphold the prohibition, reduce it in duration, or cancel the prohibition altogether. If you are prohibited by RoadSafetyBC, you are prohibited from driving for all purposes. RoadSafetyBC does not make exceptions that allow you to drive for work or medical reasons. Learn more about driving prohibitions here.

What considerations does RoadSafetyBC make when reviewing my submission?

RoadSafetyBC will look at a number of factors, including the following:

your driving experience;
the type and class of licence(s);
the seriousness of the infraction(s) as they relate to public safety or property damage;
the period of time since the infraction or between infractions;
any previous warnings, probation periods or driving prohibitions;
any previous lenience shown by adjudicators;
penalty points; and
driving improvement shown.

Hardship alone will usually not result in a driving prohibition being cancelled.

This is the first driving ticket I have ever received, and I am a good driver. Should I bother disputing it?

There are a number of reasons to dispute your first ticket. If you are a new driver, you can be prohibited from driving after a single ticket. If you are an experienced driver, you can be prohibited for as few as two tickets. If you pay your ticket, fail to dispute your ticket, miss your hearing, plead guilty, or are convicted of the offence, the violation will go on your record. All entries on a driving record are permanent.

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.

Vancouver

450 SW Marine Dr, Suite 510
Vancouver, BC V5X 0C3

(604) 558-8778

Surrey

13711 72 Avenue
Surrey, BC V3W 2P2

(604) 588-2800

Kelowna

1638 Pandosy Street #20
Kelowna, BC V1Y 1P8

(250) 860-2744

Abbotsford

30125 Automall Dr #107A
Abbotsford, BC V2T 6Y9

(778) 769-3388

Richmond

1611-7468 Lansdowne Road
Richmond, BC V7C 0B7

(604) 278-8100

Driving Law

Nov 13, 2019

Filkow Law Welcomes New Articled Student Michael Scott

Filkow Law welcomes articled student Michael Scott to our legal team. Michael is finishing his articling year at Filkow Law and will be called to the bar in 2019. Michael has a strong background in civil litigation, and is familiar with civil procedure in both the Provincial and Supreme Courts of British Columbia.

At Filkow Law, Michael assists on various files including traffic tickets, driving offences, ICBC issues, and criminal matters. Michael is focused on resolving client issues favourably, practically, and expeditiously.

Filkow Law’s Newest Driving Offence Lawyer: Michael Scott

Michael obtained a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of British Columbia, while being active in several student leadership organizations. Michael pursued his law degree at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops.

In his spare time, Michael plays goalkeeper in recreational soccer leagues. He also enjoys playing rhythm guitar, bass guitar and backup vocals for his band from law school.

If you have a legal matter, call Michael at Filkow Law to assist you.

Read Now

Oct 28, 2019

The Impact of the Conduct of a Judge on a Trial

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently criticized a trial judge for his conduct throughout a trial involving the death and alleged murder of a longboarder, Ralph Bisonnette, by a taxi driver, Adib Ibrahim. This post will examine what the trial judge did that drew criticism. While the judge’s behaviour did not directly result in a new trial it opens up an interesting discussion on the proper conduct of a judge during the course of any trial at all, let alone a stressful murder trial. This post will also examine an appeal on the grounds of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Mistrial Application

On the 14th day of the trial, defence counsel made an application for a mistrial based on a number of different actions performed by the judge throughout the course of the trial. Defence counsel argued that the trial judge’s conduct demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias against Mr. Ibrahim.

The test in Canada for establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias is whether “a reasonable person, properly informed and viewing the matter realistically and practically conclude that the decision-maker could decide the case fairly”. In other words, would a reasonable person think the judge could decide fairly?

In support of their application, defence had prepared a number of points illustrating the poor conduct of the trial judge that they argued thereby established a reasonable apprehension of bias:

The trial judge complained three times about the defence not having a disclosure obligation;
The trial judge required defence counsel to vet his cross-examination of witnesses ahead of time with the Crown and the court;
The trial judge accused defence counsel of “trial by ambush” and expressed disappointment in the conduct of defence counsel;
The trial judge interfered with the cross-examination of a Crown witness;
The trial judge continually shook his head with disapproval in front of the jury while defence counsel questioned witnesses;
The trial judge suggested, in the presence of the jury, that defence counsel was wasting time by cross-examining witnesses on videotaped statements, rather than from prepared transcripts;
The trial judge interfered with the examination of witnesses on a voir dire;
The trial judge accused defence counsel of attempting to engender the sympathy of the jury through inadmissible evidence;
The trial judge yelled at defence counsel on numerous occasions;
The trial judge glared at defence counsel, both in front of and in the absence of the jury; and
The trial judge constantly interrupted defence counsel during submissions.

In sum, the trial judge was yelling, glaring, interrupting, and otherwise interfering with defence counsel. These allegations were supported by affidavits from defence counsel and employee of defence counsel’s law firm.

After hearing some of the oral submissions on his alleged misbehaviour, the trial judge interjected and stated that he disagreed with virtually all of defence counsel’s points. The Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge frequently made lengthy comments during defence counsel’s submissions, while Crown was permitted to make their submissions without interruption.

Not only did the trial judge deny defence counsel’s allegations, stating “I categorically do not accept that I have yelled at you… [my] normal voice is a very loud and deep voice”, but he also accused defence counsel of “an ethical breach” and of professional misconduct and sharp practice contrary to the Canadian Bar Association’s Code of Professional Conduct.

In the end, the trial judge dismissed the application for a mistrial. The Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge’s written reasons for refusing defence counsel’s mistrial application were remarkably long: 64 single-spaced pages with 49 footnotes. The Court also noted that, throughout his reasons, the trial judge’s displeasure towards defence counsel was “palpable” and even insulting at times.

The Appeal

While the Ontario Court of Appeal ultimately allowed a new appeal on the ground of improper instructions to the jury and dismissed the appeal on reasonable apprehension of bias, they provided substantial commentary on the issue of bias. In particular, they stated that they were concerned with how the mistrial application was handled

The Court of Appeal noted the following:

The mistrial application was conducted in an “injudicious manner”;
When a trial judge feels compelled to intervene they should consider courtesy and restraint;
Allegations regarding a trial judge’s verbal and non-verbal conduct during a trial are serious;
The duty of the trial judge to maintain composure during the course of a trial is important;
The trial judge’s conduct was not a model of “judicial decorum”;
The trial judge is responsible for reducing the stress of conflict;
The trial judge should not to exacerbate conflict through harsh words, a raised voice, or distracting and hostile non-verbal communications.

However, despite these criticisms, the court did not believe that there was a significant impact to the overall fairness of the trial and that these issues, while improper, did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Conclusion

The decision in this case shows that some tensions and emotions can run high during a criminal trial and result in some conflict between defence counsel and the trial judge. While a trial judge has a duty to exercise courtesy and restraint, a substantial amount of discretion is given to the trial judge on how to conduct a trial. The Court of Appeal clearly sent a message to trial judges by criticizing the conduct of the trial judge in this case, but in the end they would not have concluded that his behaviour gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Although reasonable apprehension of bias is a possible ground of appeal, it is clear from this decision that the bar for establishing bias based on the conduct of a judge can be quite high.

Read Now

Sep 10, 2019

Immediate Roadside Prohibitions (IRP) Explained

The Motor Vehicle Act sets out a legislative scheme by which motorists can have their licenses suspended.

This post sets out the specific provisions of the Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) legislation, explains how the scheme works, and why the IRP regime is often used in lieu of criminal charges in British Columbia. To fully understand why the IRP regime has displaced criminal proceedings, it is also necessary to understand the British Columbia Crown Counsel Policy that was brought into force at the same time as the IRP regime was implemented in 2010.

Why is an Immediate Roadside Prohibition Issued in Lieu of Criminal Charges?

At the same time as the IRP regime came into effect, the BC Crown Counsel Office passed a policy that very significantly reduced the number of cases that would be approved for criminal prosecution in British Columbia. The policy recognizes the significant consequences imposed by the IRP regime on a driver who blows a “fail” or who fails or refuses without reasonable excuse to provide a breath sample into an Approved Screening Device. Those consequences are discussed in detail below. In recognition of these penalties, the policy provides that where a driver has been subjected to an IRP and related consequences, a prosecution for an impaired driving offence is generally not in the public interest unless aggravating circumstances apply. Those aggravating factors are set out in the policy and include:

Read Now

Pages: 123456789101112131415161718192021222324

Driving Law

Driving While Prohibited

Licence Prohibitions

ICBC Breaches & Accidents

Immediate Roadside Prohibitions

Why did I get a driving prohibition from RoadSafetyBC?

What is the difference between a fully-licensed driver (Class 5) and a new driver (Class 7)?

What if I have an international driver’s licence?

I have my full licence (Class 5). How many points am I allowed before I will be prohibited?

I am a new driver (Class 7). How many points am I allowed before I will be prohibited?

What is considered a high-risk driving offence?

I have a letter referring me to the Driver Improvement Program. What does that mean?

I received a Notice of Intent to Prohibit. What does this mean?

I have received a Notice of Intent to Prohibit Letter. What can I do?

If RoadSafetyBC already intends to prohibit me from driving. Why should I submit a request to review my prohibition within 21 days?

I received a Notice of Prohibition. What does this mean?

How is a Notice of Prohibition different from a Notice of Intent to Prohibit?

I received a Notice of Prohibition but I am still driving. What will happen?

What are the possible outcomes after I send my letter?

What considerations does RoadSafetyBC make when reviewing my submission?

This is the first driving ticket I have ever received, and I am a good driver. Should I bother disputing it?

Criminal Law

Driving Law

Contact