CASE LAW - R v Taylor

BC Courts Coat of ArmsJewel Taylor was issued a 3 count violation ticket in North Vancouver and in February of 2016 paid the fines shown on the ticket. She subsequently received a bill from ICBC for the point penalties involved totalling $640. Shortly after that she applied for an extension of time to appeal her conviction. She was 18 months late in doing so according to the Criminal Rules of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

In this case, Madam Justice Gropper examines the factors that are to be considered when the court is asked to extend the limit of time for appeal. Ms. Taylor did not meet them and was unsuccessful in having the extension granted.



This judgement shows the

This judgement shows the judge does not understand penalty premiums.

"the court made it clear that in ascribing points and asking drivers to pay additional fees as a result of those points, that is an administrative function in which the court takes no part. Points do not affect any right of the driver but may affect the driver's privilege to hold a licence."

The driver in this case had to pay a premium for her driver's certificate of insurance due to the points.  Subsection Part 1 2(10)(a) says that a person must not drive or operate a motor vehicle unless the person is insured under a valid and subsisting driver's certificate. Therefore the driver must pay for the points to legally drive her car in BC.

More information, please!

I've often wondered about how this all works, with drivers being given a certain number of points on their license for a violation, as well as annually repeating fiscal penalties until they get back below an 'acceptable' level of demerits.

The intention of the law is good (would be even more good if the cops went back to handing out demerit point tickets for the most common collision-causing behaviours) but for a Class 7 driver who gets hit with a speeding ticket and a failure to display the N (which may have been a passive error) the ongoing punishments can be seriously onerous.

For a knowledgeable person such as yourself, it's easy enough to present us with dry information that's no doubt accurate; but maybe you could explain in the practical sense, in layman's language, why you think the judge was in error? 


The judge wasn't in error,

The judge wasn't in error, she was just showing a lack of understanding.  She says points were an administrative function and that they may affect a driver's privilege to hold a license which just sounds like a guess as to their function.  There are concrete reasons that you have to pay for premium points in both the BC Motor Vehicle Act and the Insurance (Vehicle) Act as mentioned about.

For you case of a failure to display an N.  I would definitely put my case in front of judge.  By the letter of the law, I think you would be required to pay for the points.  But the purpose of the premium point system is conflicting with the letter of the law and how ICBC has implemented the premium point system. 

The purpose of the premium point system is to make higher risk driver pay more for their Driver's Certificate of Insurance.  The Driver's Certificate of Insurance is a policy giving driver's $200,000 in liability protection in certain circumstances.  Should ICBC be making you pay an additional premium for speeding?  Of course, that makes you a higher risk of a claim on your Driver's Certificate policy.  Should ICBC be making you pay an additional premium for not displaying your N.  I don't think so, how can a driver of a car be a less risky driver iwth an N on the back of their car that they can not even see.  Not displaying an N does not increase you risk of being at fault for a claim.  Similiar for the two points for driving over a fire hose or 3 points for unnecessary noise. 

The purpose of the premium points is to make riskier driver's pay for having a higher risk of a claim.  The fact is that ICBC probably has almost no claims on their Driver's Certificate of Insurance policies but makes a fortune on premium points.  Premium points should assessed against the Owner's Certificate of Insurance but the law isn't written that way.  

Just thinking out loud.  I wonder how ICBC can justify collecting all those premiums for Driver's Certificate of Insurance but pay out close to nothing under the policies. 


Google Ads