Impaired driving convictions spark B.C. lawsuits

[grumpydigger]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... suits.html Angry B.C. drivers have filed a flurry of lawsuits challenging the province's tough drunk driving laws, after a B.C. Supreme Court justice ruled parts of the legislation are unconstitutional last week.

Lawyer Jennifer Currie filed three petitions in B.C. Supreme Court on Wednesday on behalf of clients challenging driving prohibitions. All cited last week's decision against the section of the legislation deemed unfair to people who blow over .08.

The ruling found 90-day suspensions and costly interlock devices too harsh for an offence drivers have limited means to appeal.

Currie says she's been flooded with calls from people wondering what that means for them and she expects to see many more petitions in the weeks to come.

"I'm bombarded with phone calls everyday... It's very frustrating for a lot of people, and it's been very unfair to a lot of people," she said.

She says many hoped the ruling would force the province to give them their licenses back, but the justice who made the ruling has yet to make a final order on the future of the law.

So instead she says they're being forced to court.

"They're mad they got stuck in an unfair law.... They're frustrated with the money they spent and they're frustrated they have to go through this at all."
0.08 convictions ruled unfair

On Wednesday Justice J.S. Sigurdson that B.C. was within its jurisdiction to put in place laws that target drivers with a blood alcohol content over 0.05 per cent, because the province should be allowed to regulate licensing of drivers and put in measures to enhance highway safety.

However, the judge also found that B.C.'s laws do violate the Charter when a driver is screened and found to fail a breathalyzer test by blowing above 0.08 per cent, as it gives the police power to impose criminal-like consequences with no opportunity given to the motorist to challenge the decision.

Sigurdson wrote in his decision that under criminal law, a driver has a number of protections that are essentially stripped under B.C.'s new law for drivers who fail the breathalyzer test at a level of 0.08 or above.

He asked the lawyers for both sides to return to make arguments on how to resolve the infringement.

[goatboy]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/12/08/bc-impaired-driving-laws-lawsuits.html Angry B.C. drivers have filed a flurry of lawsuits challenging the province's tough drunk driving laws, after a B.C. Supreme Court justice ruled parts of the legislation are unconstitutional last week.

Lawyer Jennifer Currie filed three petitions in B.C. Supreme Court on Wednesday on behalf of clients challenging driving prohibitions. All cited last week's decision against the section of the legislation deemed unfair to people who blow over .08.

The ruling found 90-day suspensions and costly interlock devices too harsh for an offence drivers have limited means to appeal.

Currie says she's been flooded with calls from people wondering what that means for them and she expects to see many more petitions in the weeks to come.

"I'm bombarded with phone calls everyday... It's very frustrating for a lot of people, and it's been very unfair to a lot of people," she said.

She says many hoped the ruling would force the province to give them their licenses back, but the justice who made the ruling has yet to make a final order on the future of the law.

So instead she says they're being forced to court.

"They're mad they got stuck in an unfair law.... They're frustrated with the money they spent and they're frustrated they have to go through this at all."
0.08 convictions ruled unfair

On Wednesday Justice J.S. Sigurdson that B.C. was within its jurisdiction to put in place laws that target drivers with a blood alcohol content over 0.05 per cent, because the province should be allowed to regulate licensing of drivers and put in measures to enhance highway safety.

However, the judge also found that B.C.'s laws do violate the Charter when a driver is screened and found to fail a breathalyzer test by blowing above 0.08 per cent, as it gives the police power to impose criminal-like consequences with no opportunity given to the motorist to challenge the decision.

Sigurdson wrote in his decision that under criminal law, a driver has a number of protections that are essentially stripped under B.C.'s new law for drivers who fail the breathalyzer test at a level of 0.08 or above.

He asked the lawyers for both sides to return to make arguments on how to resolve the infringement.

I do laugh at her comment that her clients "are being forced to court". Isn't that what they've wanted all along? The judgement wasn't that the law itself was unconstitutional, but rather the inability to dispute it in court was.

[grumpydigger]

Do you laugh


When an unconstitutional law is forced on the people If you do......... that explains everything

[goatboy]

Do you laugh


When an unconstitutional law is forced on the people If you do......... that explains everything

Sure, twist my words as usual, I wouldn't expect anything less.

What I'm laughing at is the lawyer complaining that her clients now have to go to court for something that you've been arguing people should be able to go to court for. You've won and are still not happy that you did.

[cv23]

I do laugh at her comment that her clients "are being forced to court". Isn't that what they've wanted all along? The judgement wasn't that the law itself was unconstitutional, but rather the inability to dispute it in court was.

I think she means that to get their suspensions overturned they are being forced to go to court rather than the province admitting they were in the wrong and automatically wiping out all the previously, now proven wrongly, issued suspensions or doing so simply by a formal request.
The government has been found to be in the wrong and by forcing all these people into court to correct the injustice it will further clog up the court system, cost us taxpayers millions and it is clear with the ruling that the government will lose every single case.

[Rwede]

Her clents shouldn't have been drinking and driving. That fact is indisputable.

All I see is a bunch of drunken idiots not taking responsibility for their actions. The blame rests clearly on THEM for what they have down, irrespective of what the technicalities of the law are.

[TyrianQuill]

 
 
Something to cosider when mulling over the last several postings in this thread:

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” George Bernard Shaw

Words are one aspect of text and spoken communication, order is another as is intent; seeminglessly shifting from an informing presentation to a defending presentation can be a skill.

[Smurf]

goatboy wrote:

grumpydigger wrote:
Do you laugh


When an unconstitutional law is forced on the people If you do......... that explains everything

Sure, twist my words as usual, I wouldn't expect anything less.

What I'm laughing at is the lawyer complaining that her clients now have to go to court for something that you've been arguing people should be able to go to court for. You've won and are still not happy that you did.

Exactly, even if the law had never been changed or if it is changed again to suit the supreme court decission people still have to go to court to dispute it. That is the dispute method, so why complain when they have to use that method. Besides we are talking .08 here, these people were drunk. Throw the book at them. The lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank and we will be paying a fortune to convict a bunch of drunks.

[Bsuds]

 
 
Something to cosider when mulling over the last several postings in this thread:

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” George Bernard Shaw

Words are one aspect of text and spoken communication, order is another as is intent; seeminglessly shifting from an informing presentation to a defending presentation can be a skill.

No posting while under the influence pls.

[my5cents]

Exactly, even if the law had never been changed or if it is changed again to suit the supreme court decission people still have to go to court to dispute it. That is the dispute method, so why complain when they have to use that method. Besides we are talking .08 here, these people were drunk. Throw the book at them. The lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank and we will be paying a fortune to convict a bunch of drunks.

I think you missed the point. Once a law is ruled unconstitutional anyone who had been issued a ticket or had an "administrative sanction" enacted against them should have same quashed without the necessity of the recipient having to commence a court proceeding.

[cv23]

Exactly, even if the law had never been changed or if it is changed again to suit the supreme court decission people still have to go to court to dispute it. That is the dispute method, so why complain when they have to use that method. Besides we are talking .08 here, these people were drunk. Throw the book at them. The lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank and we will be paying a fortune to convict a bunch of drunks.

I think you missed the point. Once a law is ruled unconstitutional anyone who had been issued a ticket or had an "administrative sanction" enacted against them should have same quashed without the necessity of the recipient having to commence a court proceeding.

Exactly
Sure they were drunk and the previous laws and penalties will, and should, apply to them. It is only the new unconstitutional penalties they are able to but shouldn't have to waste the court systems time and money fighting. The government would rather waste millions on forcing these challenges which it will ultimately all lose rather then just accept the fact what these new penalties were found to be unconstitutional and simply rescind all the new penalties.
No one is getting away with anything. Those drivers who were found to be impaired will just face the same penalties as previous drunk drivers did. The only losers here are us taxpayers who are footing the bill for the governments stupidity in not rescinding all the new penalties and forcing all these challenges.

[my5cents]

Exactly, even if the law had never been changed or if it is changed again to suit the supreme court decission people still have to go to court to dispute it. That is the dispute method, so why complain when they have to use that method. Besides we are talking .08 here, these people were drunk. Throw the book at them. The lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank and we will be paying a fortune to convict a bunch of drunks.

I think you missed the point. Once a law is ruled unconstitutional anyone who had been issued a ticket or had an "administrative sanction" enacted against them should have same quashed without the necessity of the recipient having to commence a court proceeding.

Exactly
Sure they were drunk and the previous laws and penalties will, and should, apply to them. It is only the new unconstitutional penalties they are able to but shouldn't have to waste the court systems time and money fighting. The government would rather waste millions on forcing these challenges which it will ultimately all lose rather then just accept the fact what these new penalties were found to be unconstitutional and simply rescind all the new penalties.
No one is getting away with anything. Those drivers who were found to be impaired will just face the same penalties as previous drunk drivers did. The only losers here are us taxpayers who are footing the bill for the governments stupidity in not rescinding all the new penalties and forcing all these challenges.

It's been announce that the government is staying the suspensions until the end of January.

As far as Criminal Code now being applied against those who blew over 80 and were given the IRP, that would be impossible. They weren't taken for a blow in an "approved instrument", so they are off.

This all started by a government that foolishly enacted an unconstitutional law. It's not the first time for them and probably won't be the last.

[twobits]

As far as Criminal Code now being applied against those who blew over 80 and were given the IRP, that would be impossible. They weren't taken for a blow in an "approved instrument", so they are off.

This is exactly why an appeal to a higher court may also toss out the law with regards to fines and penalites between 05 and 08. If the roadside devices are not approved to convict and levy penalties above 08, they should not be approved to levy a penalty at any level. You can't just say "it's close enough" for this level of punishment and deny any meaningfull challenge.

[d_bengert]

Sure...they were drunk... Are you sure? How can you be sure...there was no proof....so how exactly are you sure...because the police man said so...because his little toy had a red light on it....I'm getting a little worried here... How can so many people be so quick to judge... You weren't there....all the police officer had to do was take the " bad guy" down to the police station to blow on a device that that tells you blood alcohol levels...but no...we don't need proof because the general public is so brainwashed...we can do anything we want...

[my5cents]

As far as Criminal Code now being applied against those who blew over 80 and were given the IRP, that would be impossible. They weren't taken for a blow in an "approved instrument", so they are off.

This is exactly why an appeal to a higher court may also toss out the law with regards to fines and penalites between 05 and 08. If the roadside devices are not approved to convict and levy penalties above 08, they should not be approved to levy a penalty at any level. You can't just say "it's close enough" for this level of punishment and deny any meaningfull challenge.

I agree completely.

KL3 something, in the "British Columbia - B.C. drunk driving law could be overturned" forum provided the entire text of the reason for judgement :
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/ ... SC1639.htm

It is very lengthy, (69 legal pages) however the judge felt that 50 - 80, although it "infringes" on the Charter,

The requirement here is that “the deleterious effects of the measures must be proportionate to the harm that the legislation is designed to address, and the requirement that the salutary effects of the legislation must outweigh its deleterious effects”

it was basically worthwhile in getting driver's over 50 off the roadway and could stand. He felt because of the severity of the penalties for over 80 that it was not justified, and would need some type of "meaningful review".