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. D.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (domestic). Reduced to Peace Bond.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we guided our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charges  upon our client entering into a Peace Bond with a 12 month "no contact" order. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.H. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (domestic). Reduced to Peace Bond.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we guided our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charges  upon our client entering into a Peace Bond with a 12 month "no contact" order. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.H. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there remained a public interest in continuing with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information about our client to Crown counsel which ultimately led to Crown entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.A. – Non Academic Misconduct Investigation

Charges: Sexual harassment.
Issue: Whether our client's behaviour amounted to "sexual harassment" as defined by the university's conduct policy.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to prepare our client for the University's hearing and, upon hearing all of the evidence, the University ruled that our client had not engaged in sexual harassment or any behaviour that contravened the institution's policies.

R. vs. Y.Z. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Attempted Murder (reduced to assault with a weapon). Issue: Given the circumstances of the event and given our client's mental health condition, whether our client truly had the intention to kill the complainant. Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide medical/psychological information to Crown counsel and, ultimately, was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser offence of assault with a weapon and to make a joint recommendation to the court for a conditional discharge, rather than the lengthy jail sentence they were originally seeking.  After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court granted our client the discharge. No criminal conviction. No jail.

R. vs. E.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault x2 (Reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given the potential for self-defence in this case, whether it was appropriate for the criminal prosecution to continue.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel which resulted in Crown's decision to proceed with a Peace Bond rather than the criminal charges. No criminal record.

R. v. G.K. – Fort St. John Provincial Court

Charge: Theft/ Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether Crown could prove the alleged $300,000 offence and, given the rehabilitative steps that we were able to guide our client through, whether a jail sentence was necessary.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel that they could only prove that our client was responsible for a $74,000 theft. Further, despite the breach of trust, in this case, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to seek a conditional sentence, rather than jail. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the court sentenced our client to a 2 year conditional sentence. No jail.

R. vs. C.Y. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charges: Assault with a weapon ( reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client to resolve this matter with a s. 810 Recognizance (Peace Bond) for a period of 12 months. Stay of proceedings on the criminal charge. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Theft and Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether the pre-charge delay of 3.5 years would reduce the sentence in this $215,000 employee fraud case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the trial judge and Crown counsel that there was merit to our application for a judicial stay of proceedings based on our client's inability to properly defend the charges due to a delay of about 4 years in getting the charges approved. Notwithstanding this breach of trust, Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a plea arrangement in which our client received a 2 year conditional sentence order with a 10 pm curfew for 12 months. No monies were ordered to be repaid. No jail.

R. vs. M.P. – Abbotsford Police Investigation

Charges: Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosucution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown and to ultimately persuade Crown counsel to not approve any charge in this case. No charge approves. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Failing to stop at an accident resulting in bodily harm.
Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence, our client's background and his extreme remorse, whether a jail sentence was warranted.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was ble to direct our client through a course of psychological counselling and was able to persuade Crown counsel to agree to a non-custodial sentence. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a 12 month conditional sentence. No jail.

R. vs. Q.G. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether Crown counsel had sufficient evidence to meet the charge approval standard.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that important evidence would be missing from a cenrtal witness and to not approve any charges. 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