You are here: / / Motor Vehicle Violation Tickets
  • Vancouver at night

Motor Vehicle Violation Tickets

The Charge

The British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) sets out a myriad of driving offences designed to promote road safety. The MVA and its Regulations set out rules to govern everything from the licencing and insurance requirements of drivers to speeding, careless driving and alcohol and drug related offences. While upon conviction, drivers are subject to fines, the real issue for drivers is that the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, through RoadSafetyBC, will seek to prohibit drivers who have accumulated too many of the demerit points that go along with traffic ticket convictions. A small sampling of demerit point penalties are set out below, listed by Offence / MVA Section No..

2 POINTS

Fail to yield to pedestrian / 127 (1)
Red light at intersection / 129 (1)
Flashing red light / 131 (1)
Unsafe lane change / 151 (a)
Improper left turn / 166

3 POINTS

Fail to state name and address / 73 (2)
Speed against highway sign / 146 (3)
Cross solid double line / 155 (1)
Fail to pass safely / 157 (1)
Improper turn at intersection / 165 (2)

4 POINTS

Use of electronic device / 214.2

6 POINTS

Careless driving / 144 (1)(a)
Driving without reasonable consideration / 144 (1)(b)

10 POINTS

Driving while prohibited or suspended / 95
All Criminal Code driving offences

Because RoadSafetyBC will serve driving prohibitions for drivers who collect too many demerit penalty points, it sometimes becomes prudent to retain a lawyer to defend against a motor vehicle violation ticket. We can help drivers avoid being issued a Notice of Intent to Prohibit.

Recent Successes

R. vs. L.W. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Aggravated Assault; Breach of Undertaking; Assault police officer; Mischief to property.
Issue: Given the seriousness of the facial injuries to the complainant and the ensuing assault of the arresting police officer, whether a lengthy prison sentence was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to steer our client through an extensive program of rehabilitation and, after gearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions in a contested hearing, the Court granted our client a conditional sentence of only 3 months, followed by 2 years probation. No jail.

R. vs. T.J. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Theft Under $5000.Issue: Whether there was substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Gauthier provided information and made representations to Crown counsel which ultimately led Crown to agree that there was no reasonable likelihood of a conviction. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.S. – Burnaby RCMP Investigation

Charges: Assault, mischief under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the investigating  RCMP officer to allow our client tp apologize to the complainant through Restorative Justice. Police did not seek to have any criminal charges approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. I.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Fraud Over $5000.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to a jail for this $10,000 fraud from his employer.
Result: Notwithstanding that our client had a previous criminal conviction for a similar breach of trust offence, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to not seek a jail sentence. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a term of house arrest. No jail.

R. vs. K.Y. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault by choking (x2); assault (x2); mischief under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for the Court to enter a conviction against our client.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on only one count of common assault and to stay all remaining charges. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted our client a conditional discharge and placed him on probation for 12 months.No criminal conviction.

R. vs. T.F. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Theft Under $5,000, Obstructing a Peace Officer, Uttering Threats.

Issue: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances.

Result: Mr. Johnston was able to direct our client to the appropriate community supports with respect to his rehabilitation. Given the positive change in our client's circumstances, the sentencing judge accepted Mr. Johnston's submission that a community based sentence was appropriate rather than the 60 jail sentence sought by the Crown. No jail.

R. vs. B.K. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to make a joint submission without the necessity of our client being required to complete counselling. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions the court granted our client the discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. v. R.L. – New Westminster Supreme Court

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to continue with the prosecution in this retrial after a deadlocked jury decision.
Result: upon considering all of Mr. Mines' representations, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.H. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to continue with the prosecution in this retrial after a deadlocked jury decision.
Result: upon considering all of Mr. Mines' representations, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.J. – Downtown Community Court

Charge: Theft of property of a value not exceeding $5,000
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnston identified weaknesses in the available video evidence which persuaded the Crown to direct a stay of proceedings on the charge. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.M. = Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault with a Weapon; Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnston provided Crown counsel with information about our client’s circumstances, including his lack of prior criminal offending, his efforts at rehabilitation, and the fact that a conviction for either offence could result in the client’s deportation, an outcome which Mr. Johnston argued would be disproportionate to the seriousness of alleged offences. At the same time, Mr. Johnston pointed out weaknesses in the evidence against our client. The Crown directed stays of proceedings on both charges. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.V. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Uttering Threats x3; Criminal Harassment; Breach of Release Order (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution of these matters.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel that it was more appropriate to deal with these matters in the context of Family Court. Ultimately Crown did not approve the uttering threats and criminal harassment charges and Mr. Gauthier persuaded Crown that there was no public interest in prosecuting the breach charge and to enter a stay of proceedings. No jail. No criminal record.
View All

The Defence

One of our first considerations is the timing of any trial that we set. This is because the ICBC Driver Improvement Policy sets out generally that the number of penalty points accumulated over a 2-year period are to be considered when assessing whether a driver should be prohibited. For example, a Class 5 driver with no previous prohibitions will be served with a Notice to Prohibit for between 3 and 8 months when they reach 15 demerit points within 2 years. Thus, scheduling a trial date outside of the two-year window may be the best strategy to avoid accumulating too many points.

Defending a traffic ticket is much like defending a criminal charge. While traffic matters are considered to be “strict liability” offences in that the Crown need not prove that the driver intended to commit the offence, the police/Crown still have the burden of proving that the offence occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. When retained to defend traffic violation tickets, we will employ all of the same methods and strategies as we would for a criminal trial. For example, we will contact the relevant police agency to obtain the police report and officer’s notes relevant to the incident. We will prepare for trial by reviewing the allegation and, in appropriate cases, making you ready to testify in court. During the trial, we will cross examine the investigating officer with respect to issues like identifying you as the driver; and the officer’s ability to observe and remember facts such as traffic conditions, and the speed and actions of other vehicles. We have a great track record in Traffic Court for negotiating away convictions and penalty points as well as securing acquittals for our clients.

Start with a free consultation.

If you are being investigated by police or if you’ve been charged with a criminal or driving offence, don’t face the problem alone. Being accused of an offence is stressful. The prospects of a criminal record or jail sentence can be daunting. Even if you think there is no defence, we may be able to help. To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers, contact us now.

Connect