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. v. J.C. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Uttering a threat; Posession of a weapon (knife) for a dangerous purpose.
Issue: Given our client's circumstances and the circumstances of the incident, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide Crown with background information about our client and the incident which caused Crown to conclude it was not in the public interest to continue the prosecution. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. M.M. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution in this $900 shoplifting case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel about our client's personal circumstances, resulting in Crown referring our client to the Alternative Measures program. No criminal record.

R. v. J.Z. & Q.M. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charges: Fraud Over $5,000.
Issue: Whether our client's were responsible for approximately $15,000 in false claims unknowingly made in their names by a health care provider.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to settle with the insurance provider. No criminal charges were forwarded against our clients. Mr. Gauthier was also able to assist with the first steps of recovering the funds from the dishonest health care provider. No criminal record.

R. v. V.N. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Assault (police investigation).
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier opposed the police application to extend the time period they could continue to retain seized evidence and he provided advice to our client in steering him through the investigation. The matter concluded with no criminal charges being forwarded to Crown. No criminal record.

R. v. R.T. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge: Insurance Fraud Under $5,000 investigation.
Issue: Given our client's rehabilitation and repayment of disputed claims, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges forwarded. No criminal record.

R. v. G. A.G. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction in this case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that, given the lack of cooperation by the complainant, that there was no prospect of a conviction. Crown counsel did not approve any charges and, on Mr. Mines' representations, agreed to cancel the scheduled court date and to direct police to cancel our client's Undertaking to Appear. No criminal record.

R. v. L.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Mischief Over $5000.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove the value of damage alleged to have been caused by our client.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that because it could not accurately prove the value of damage, and that our client had taken appropriate steps of self-rehabilitation,  Crown elected to not approve any charges. No criminal record.

R. v. H.K. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution in this "road rage" case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel about our client's personal circumstances and the circumstances of the incident which resulted in Crown staying the charge after our client completed Alternative Measures. No criminal record.

R. v. J.S. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Uttering Threats (x3).
Issue: Whether or not our client was entitled to be sentenced to a conditional discharge rather than being convicted of this offence.
Result: Upon hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions on our client's behalf, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge rather than entering a conviction. No criminal record.

R. v. S.G. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; Mischief. Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps that we guided our client through and advocating on her behalf that there was a reasonable self defence issue, whether there was a substantial likelihood of securing a conviction.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel that there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction. Ultimately Crown entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal conviction. No criminal record.

R. v. K.B.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: B&E; Assault; Distribute Intimate Images.
Issue: Whether the Crown could comply with a defence disclosure request and possibly face a Charter application to have charges stayed due to unreasonable delay.
Result: On the eve of the trial, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to allow our client to plead guilty to the least serious charge, assault by slapping. Crown nonetheless sought a conviction and probation, but after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. v. C.B.S. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charges: B&E; Assault; Distribute Intimate Images.
Issue: Whether the Crown could comply with a defence disclosure request and possibly face a Charter application to have charges stayed due to unreasonable delay.
Result: On the eve of the trial, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to allow our client to plead guilty to the least serious charge, assault by slapping. Crown nonetheless sought a conviction and probation, but after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.
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