You are here: / Driving Prohibitions

  • Our Areas of Practice

    We defend all criminal charges with skill and dedication.

    Vancouver at night

Driving Prohibitions

Driving is a Privilege, not a Right

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled clearly that driving a vehicle is a privilege and not a right. Provincial Governments have the jurisdiction to regulate driving, and in British Columbia this is done through ICBC/RoadSafetyBC. RoadSafetyBC is responsible for regulating British Columbia’s 3.2 million active drivers with respect to issues such as driving prohibitions or suspensions, vehicle impoundments, and driver improvement requirements such as the Remedial Driving Program and Ignition Interlock Program. The Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, through the Motor Vehicle Act, is the administrative authority that regulates driving with a view to reducing the risk factors that lead to motor vehicle crash fatalities and injuries. Under the MVA, the Superintendent has statutory authority to:

  • Prohibit a person from driving based on an unsatisfactory driving record, on the foundation of an accumulation of penalty demerit points for traffic violations; and to
  • Require drivers to participate in remedial driving programs such as the Responsible Drivers Program or the Ignition Interlock Program.

Receiving a Notice of Intent to Prohibit

When drivers are convicted of a Motor Vehicle Violation Ticket, in addition to a prescribed fine, the driver will be assessed a number of penalty demerit points. For example, a driver convicted of making an improper left-hand turn will be assessed 2 points; a driver convicted of speeding will receive 3 points and a driver convicted of using an electronic device will receive 4 points. When drivers reach a certain threshold (based on their type of license and prior driving history) the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles will send them a “Notice of Intent to Prohibit” for a period of 1 month to 24 months or more. Receiving such a letter can be devastating news for people who must drive for work or family purposes. Fortunately, RoadSafetyBC does have an appeal process as part of their Driver Improvement Program. We have a history of success in conducting these appeals and can help you with your Application for Review of an intended driving prohibition.

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

Application to Review a “Point Based” Driving Prohibition

When a conviction is enforced against a driver for any traffic violation ticket, including an alcohol-related roadside prohibition, RoadSafetyBC will review the driver’s record over the past 2 years. Generally, for drivers in the graduated licence program (an “L” or “N” driver) as little as 2 demerit points will trigger a Notice of Intent to Prohibit; for experienced drivers, anything more than 14 demerit points within a 2-year period will trigger a Notice of Intent to Prohibit. Additional factors, such as any alcohol-related convictions; any prior driving prohibitions or any convictions for “high risk” offences such as distracted driving or excessive speeding, will also apply and will generally trigger longer driving prohibitions.

We are experienced in understanding RoadSafetyBC’s Driver Improvement Program Policies and Guidelines. We are able to assist clients in applying to have an intended prohibition cancelled altogether or the prohibition period reduced. If you have received a Notice of Intent to Prohibit, it is imperative that you act quickly, because there is a 21-day time limit for a review of the prohibition. In order to make application for the review, we will meet with you and go over your personal circumstances and your driving record. We will essentially see how your situation fits into the policies set out by the Driver Improvement Program, and we will craft a compelling argument in an effort to cancel or reduce the driving prohibition that RoadSafetyBC intends to impose.

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