CASE LAW - Gilles v British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles)
Mr. Gilles is seeking to have the courts quash an adjudicator's decision and cancel the Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) issued to him after being stopped by police while driving on Bainbridge Avenue in Burnaby, B.C. Madam Justice Russell finds four areas where the Superintendent of Motor Vehicle's adjudicator erred in reaching a decision to uphold the IRP. The four areas of contention are:
- Did the Adjudicator err by preferring the Constable’s evidence because it was prepared on the day the events took place?
- Was it open to the Adjudicator to consider evidence concerning the Petitioner’s physical symptoms as part of the Review?
- Did the Adjudicator err by taking judicial notice of the fact that the petitioner’s physical symptoms were not consistent with the BAC the petitioner claims he had at the relevant time?
- Did the Adjudicator err in her duty of fairness by denying the petitioner the opportunity to make submissions on whether his BAC was consistent with his physical symptoms?
The justice directed that "The appropriate remedy is to remit the matter to the Superintendent for a new review. I understand that the Superintendent’s practice when a matter is remitted is to assign another Adjudicator to consider the matter. However, in an abundance of caution, and to address the reasonable apprehension of bias, I direct that a different Adjudicator undertake the second review and that these reasons be brought to his or her attention so the same errors can be avoided."