B.C. drunk driving law could be overturned

[Trunk-Monkey]

How many people do you honestly think can just give up driving completely... and simply?

Not many but thats hardly the point. If you drink and drive you do not deserve to drive....after all it is not a right to drive...period.

[simnut]

No but when you start the process of getting a BCDL and you sign on the dotted line you are agreeing to follow the rules and laws set forth as they relate to driving a motor vehicle on the road. I know your situation Simnut but you have to agree that the IRP's in it and of themselve work. Yes the appeal process is lengthy bit there is one in place and you will have your day in court...

I will give the IRPS some credit alright.....for one thing...allowing more officer time on the road, which by the way....IS the deterrent to most drivers...not the IRPS themselves. And, I would stand behind them more so IF the OSMV would "stay" the penalties if the driver in question makes the extreme effort to take it to the Supreme Court of BC. I would look at the OSMV as less of a juggernaut without answer-ability, and more as one that will allow the Supreme Court to make the decision on the original charge FIRST, then makes it's penalty decision.

As in our case, our day in court will not help the penalty phase one bit....as the driver has been made to serve the penalty while awaiting a court date. It will help in removal of the violation/charge from the drivers record and the driver will be able to claim costs back...such as vehicle and dog impoundment....but how does the driver get 4 months of suspension back....IF the court decides that errors were made that night. This is what rubs me the wrong way.

[simnut]

Excerpt from Judicial Review Procedures of BC:

Powers to direct tribunal to reconsider

5 (1) On an application for judicial review in relation to the exercise, refusal to exercise, or purported exercise of a statutory power of decision, the court may direct the tribunal whose act or omission is the subject matter of the application to reconsider and determine, either generally or in respect of a specified matter, the whole or any part of a matter to which the application relates.

(2) In giving a direction under subsection (1), the court must

(a) advise the tribunal of its reasons, and

(b) give it any directions that the court thinks appropriate for the reconsideration or otherwise of the whole or any part of the matter that is referred back for reconsideration.

Here is one more point about the power of the OSMV. IF the Supreme Court of BC finds that the violation/charge is incorrect due to whatever, all the Supreme Court of BC can do is ask the OSMV to go over the case again. Because, in actuality, it's called a judicial revue. It's a case where the court can find the violation invalid, but the OSMV can still do what it feels in that case....and why the catch phrase "you can beat the MVA, but you can't beat the OSMV" arises. So, in essence, the appeal goes BACK to the OSMV which was the problem in the first place!!!! Can you all not see this?

I can't figure this out......

(b) give it any directions that the court thinks appropriate for the reconsideration or otherwise of the whole or any part of the matter that is referred back for reconsideration.

Reconsider what? The penalties have already been served!!


The drivers "day in court" in the new IRPS is only to decide if the officer(s) or equipment screwed up...it has nothing to do with what the OSMV wants or cares to do or has done already...because it is a judicial revue! And THIS is what we think is a fair appeal system?

[zzontar]

How many people do you honestly think can just give up driving completely... and simply?

Not many but thats hardly the point. If you drink and drive you do not deserve to drive....after all it is not a right to drive...period.

Actually, it is a right to drink and drive, but not a right to drink enough to be over the limit and then drive.

[Trunk-Monkey]

Actually, it is a right to drink and drive, but not a right to drink enough to be over the limit and then drive.

Actually it is not a right to drive its a privilege....period. More people need to get that through their thick skulls. Not everyone has the RIGHT to drive...everyone has the right to take the test and get a BCDL but if you fail that test or do not follow the rules of the road that privilege will be taken away from you ...

[keith1612]

Actually, it is a right to drink and drive, but not a right to drink enough to be over the limit and then drive.

Actually it is not a right to drive its a privilege....period. More people need to get that through their thick skulls. Not everyone has the RIGHT to drive...everyone has the right to take the test and get a BCDL but if you fail that test or do not follow the rules of the road that privilege will be taken away from you ...

just a shame when its taken away by a bunch of heavy handed ticket writers that dont really care if you are drunk or not as long as it meets the quota and they dont have to actually go through any work to prove guilt.

[simnut]

just a shame when its taken away by a bunch of heavy handed ticket writers that dont really care if you are drunk or not as long as it meets the quota and they dont have to actually go through any work to prove guilt.

Well, I gotta step in here......

Hey dude, ya gotta get mad for the RIGHT reason and at the right group of people. 90% plus of the officers ARE trying to do the job they are supposed to do AS mandated by the province of BC and Canada. It is not their fault that they can now give administrative "tickets" to an event that is considered a criminal act, it is the government of BC. That is who you should be *bleep* at man!!

I'm not sure what your experience is with police...doesn't seem like it's been a pleasant one..... It's not a job everyone wants to OR can do! Me for instance, would be losing my temper the instant I would run across someone that has your attitude towards me if I was an officer. It isn't a glorious power trip job that some think it to be.

Have you ever done a ride along with an officer for a shift? Would you ever want to.....to walk a bit in their shoes ....experience what they really go through out there? One shift would only give you a taste of what they do....day after day. It would be a good experience for you...and anyone else that thinks your way.

Am I *bleep* at this whole IRP and impaired driving thing...at all levels? You bet I am!!! But I'm *bleep* at the government, and yea....a bit at the general public....for letting it get to where it is now. I am *bleep* at one situation that I'm very involved with...but don't even want to slag the officer involved...even though I believe that officers procedure was incorrect that evening. That officer might have gotten 4 impaired drivers off the road the week before...and that is what I like.

[zzontar]

Actually, it is a right to drink and drive, but not a right to drink enough to be over the limit and then drive.

Actually it is not a right to drive its a privilege....period. More people need to get that through their thick skulls. Not everyone has the RIGHT to drive...everyone has the right to take the test and get a BCDL but if you fail that test or do not follow the rules of the road that privilege will be taken away from you ...

What do you consider to be a right and not a privilege?

[KL3-Something]

What do you consider to be a right and not a privilege?

Perhaps the better question would be "where does it state that driving a motor vehicle is a right?".

Because here are the guaranteed rights that apply to everyone in this country. Have a look see and tell us where it states anything about driving a motor vehicle:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html

And here are two queries of the Supreme Court of Canada where the subject of the search was "Licence to Drive a Privilege":

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/search.do? ... =&endDate=

And "the right to drive":

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/search.do? ... =&endDate=

You will see in the first query of the Supreme Court of Canada many cases where the privilege to drive is referred to. Whereas in the second query you will not find anywhere that the Supreme Court of Canada refers to driving a vehicle as a "right".

[KL3-Something]

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight. ... lii61.html

R. v. Pontes, 1995 CanLII 61 (SCC), [1995] 3 SCR 44

Paragraph 112.

[simnut]

Perhaps the better question would be "where does it state that driving a motor vehicle is a right?".

Perhaps we should differentiate the difference between Charter rights, and legal rights. This may be clouding the issue...and making some of us look at this "right" thing two different ways. Charter rights are well listed in the link you provided, and are rights that come with being a canadian citizen. Legal rights are something you may qualify for....and have to maintain...as in a drivers license. Here it is stated in a way that may be understandable:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/just/01.html
Notice the third paragraph......

And "the right to drive":

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/search.do? ... =&endDate=

Many of those refer to cases about driving ON the right....or having the right to drive certain roads etc.....hehehe





The "right to drive" is not protected by the Charter of Rights, but it is a legal right, if all "parameters" are met by the driver. It IS a right that can be taken away if the driver "fails" at any of those "rules".

[theyeti]

is it a right to work ? or a requirement or what ??

is it a rite to pay taxes ??

[goatboy]

is it a right to work ? or a requirement or what ??

is it a rite to pay taxes ??

right; Definition: an entitlement to something

So, you have the right (or are entitled) to obtain employment if you meet and maintain certain requirements. You have the right (or are entitled) to drive if you meet and maintain certain requirements. It's not your Charter right to be able to drive.

[goatboy]

The "right to drive" is not protected by the Charter of Rights, but it is a legal right, if all "parameters" are met by the driver. It IS a right that can be taken away if the driver "fails" at any of those "rules".

Well put.

[simnut]

right; Definition: an entitlement to something

So, you have the right (or are entitled) to obtain employment if you meet and maintain certain requirements. You have the right (or are entitled) to drive if you meet and maintain certain requirements. It's not your Charter right to be able to drive.

DAMMIT!!! Goatboy and I agree on something....... Just kidding....we have a few times in the past......