VIEWPOINT - No more traffic court?

SoapboxNew Bill 52, to amend traffic court, is this proposed change scaring the crap out of anyone else? It looks the BC Government is further eroding any illusion that drivers of this province have any rights at all.

A new tribunal for traffic ticket disputes? Will it be as one sided and biased and unfair as the ones set up for the new drinking and driving legislation? Or will it be worse?

Specifically 285 and 294:

Exclusive jurisdiction of board

285  (1) The board has exclusive and final jurisdiction to

(a) inquire into, hear and decide all matters and questions of law, fact and discretion arising or required to be determined in an application for a determination of whether a disputant contravened the driving enactment indicated on a driving notice that was served on the disputant, and

(b) to make any order permitted to be made.

(2) A decision or order on a matter in respect of which the board has exclusive jurisdiction is final and conclusive and not open to question or review in any court.

So there is no appeal possible to any other court if this kangaroo court proves to be disqustingly biased?

294  (1) A driving enforcement officer must, on the board's request, promptly forward to the board

(a) a certificate of service completed by the driving enforcement officer who served the driving notice on the disputant under section 272 (6), in the form established by regulation under section 278, showing that the driving notice was personally served on the disputant, if the certificate was endorsed on a copy of the driving notice,

(b) a report, in the form established by regulation, sworn or solemnly affirmed by the driving enforcement officer who issued the driving notice under section 272 (1), and

(c) other documents and information in the possession or under the control of the driving enforcement officer that are related to the driving notice.

(2) The board must, as soon as practicable, and before the pre-hearing conference, forward to the disputant copies of the things forwarded to the board under subsection (1).

So a traffic officer does not even have to show up in court to be cross examined in any meaningful way?

I mean it's not like judges really find against traffic officers that often, all they have to usually do is show up....

Traffic Court gives the average public a rare glimpse into operations of the legal system as well, it has value that way I believe too.

I hope we have a new government May 14..... I would like to have some sort appeal rights for the draconian traffic legislation being brought in by all the aging scared baby boomers.....



If I understand correctly, the tribunal spoken of here would be exactly the same as the one that hears IRP reviews. They are adjudicators with the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. They are bound by legal requirements and their decisions are subject to review by the courts.

Having spent many years sitting in traffic court watching the proceedings the bias toward police officers that you speak of must have happened in other court rooms. I've never seen it. Oddly enough, I've heard complaints of the converse lately.

Does section 285 above not

Does section 285 above not preclude any appeal or properjudicial oversight? Or am I reading into it more evil than is really there?

I've Got My Glasses On Now...

Bill 52 2012 Motor Vehicle Amendment Act No. 2 has passed third reading, so this is the way it is going to be implemented. On dispute, the matter is reviewed by an adjudicator.

My understanding of the next step was not correct, review of the adjudicator's decision will not done by the court but by a tribunal appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council with outside advice when needed as determined by the chair of the tribunal.

It seems to me that this would be an ideal job for a retired justice or criminal lawyer, someone that could be seen as experienced and not prejudiced.

The Administrative Tribunals Act governs and at first glance it appears that it would give wide powers to the tribunal to conduct the review. With the adjudications that I have been familiar with prior to this, the court only reviewed the decision, decided if it was proper or not, and if not, referred it back to the adjudicator to reconsider. Here the final decision will rest with the tribunal.

I'm no stranger to

I'm no stranger to totalitarianism...
My only regret is that currently there isn't a key public figure, who we may praise for our happy childhood, and cry the tears of despair (or joy) when they do finally choose to move to the next life.

Google Ads