The Appellant, Mr. Foster, sought judicial review of a Transportation Safety Board (“Board”) decision, which upheld a three month administrative license suspension made because Mr. Foster was allegedly driving while exceeding the legal alcohol limit. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The appropriate standard of review of the Board’s decision was reasonableness.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Suspension of driver’s licence – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Transportation Safety Board – Judicial review – Jurisdiction of tribunal – Appeals – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Foster v. Alberta (Transportation and Safety Board), [2006] A.J. No. 1263, Alberta Court of Appeal, October 12, 2006, Ritter, Hunt and Berger ...

The application by Painter to quash an adjudicator’s decision concluding that Painter had care and control of a motor vehicle while his blood alcohol level was over .08 was allowed where the Court found that the adjudicator breached the rules of natural justice when she used her own knowledge and understanding to form conclusions without giving Painter an opportunity to address these matters by putting forward evidence or by way of submissions

26. September 2006 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Adjudication – Breathalyzer test – Evidence – Suspension of driver’s licence – Judicial review – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness Painter v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2006] B.C.J. No. 1545, British Columbia Supreme Court, July 11, 2006, Gill J. Painter brought an application to quash an ...

The Court dismissed an application for judicial review holding that the lack of a transcript of a hearing before the Respondent Board did not violate the rules of natural justice

25. October 2005 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Suspension of driver’s licence – Judicial review – Failure to provide transcript of hearing – Evidence – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Natural justice Foster v. Alberta (Transportation and Safety Board), [2005] A.J. No. 1027, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, August 23, 2005, Romaine J. The Applicant had been ...

A motorist who had received three roadside suspensions within two years (“Gyles”) was unsuccessful in his appeal of the dismissal of his application for judicial review of the decision of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (the “Superintendent”) prohibiting him from driving. Gyles had failed to submit to a required medical examination.

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Motor vehicles – Suspension of driver’s licence – Evidence – Mandatory medical examination – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation Gyles v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2004] B.C.J. No 2158, British Columbia Court of Appeal, October 21, 2004, Finch C.J.B.C., Esson and Newbury JJ.A. The Court of ...

An adjudicator’s decision which confirmed a driving prohibition under the Motor Vehicle Act was set aside on the basis that the adjudicator erred in relying on a Report to Crown Counsel which did not form part of a sworn or affirmed report from a peace officer, as required by the Act

Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Suspension of driver’s licence – Adjudication – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness Neill v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2004] B.C.J. No. 1197, British Columbia Supreme Court, June 10, 2004, Cullen J. The Petitioner sought a review of an ...

The Petitioner sought a judicial review of a decision of an adjudicator who, in a “letter decision”, concluded that the Petitioner had failed to comply with the demand under section 254 of the Criminal Code to supply a breath sample and imposed a prohibition of driving for 90 days. The test on judicial review was whether the decision was patently unreasonable. The court held that there was no evidence that the officer read the written demand to the accused and therefore the adjudicator’s decision to impose a 90-day prohibition was patently unreasonable.

28. October 2003 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Refusal of breathalyzer test – Suspension of driver’s licence – Adjudication – Evidence – Judicial review – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Hewitt v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2003] B.C.J. No. 1877, British Columbia Supreme Court, May 9, 2003, Williamson J. The Petitioner sought a judicial review of ...

Devlin successfully appealed the decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) which upheld a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) suspending Devlin’s driver’s licence pursuant to section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 for medical reasons.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Suspension of driver’s licence – Medical condition – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Medical Advisory Committee – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Devlin v. Ontario (Registrar of Motor Vehicles), [2003] O.J. No. 2012, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 26, 2003, Pitt J. Devlin had experienced a single ...

This appeal was one of a set of representative appeals challenging the constitutionality of Alberta’s Administrative Licence Suspension Program under the Traffic Safety Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. T-6.4. The appellants argued that driving a vehicle should constitute a liberty interest falling within the scope of the “life, liberty or security of the person” phrase used in section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, and in so doing they reviewed the law of reconsideration.

24. June 2003 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Suspension of driver’s licence – Charter of Rights – Life liberty or security of the person – Law of reconsideration Thomson v. Alberta (Transportation and Safety Board), [2003] A.J. No. 420, Alberta Court of Appeal, April 11, 2003, Fraser C.J.A., Picard and Paperny JJ.A. As a general proposition, leave to reconsider ...

Mr. Frederickson was issued a 24-hour roadside suspension for failure to provide a breath sample to an RCMP officer. He was subsequently charged with impaired driving and refusal to comply with a breath demand. On an application for review of the driving prohibition, an adjudicator confirmed the 90-day prohibition and Mr. Frederickson did not seek judicial review of the adjudicator’s decision. Mr. Frederickson sought a stay of proceedings on the refusal to provide a breath sample, based on the defence of res judicata. A Provincial Court judge granted a stay of proceedings. On appeal of that decision, it was held that the rule in Kienapple does not apply to the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the stay of proceedings was set aside and the matter was remitted for trial.

25. February 2003 0
Administrative law – Motor vehicles – Refusal of breathalyser test – Suspension of driver’s licence – Stay of proceedings – Res judicata – Kienapple rule R. v. Frederickson, [2002] B.C.J. No. 2895, British Columbia Supreme Court, December 23, 2002, Ross J. This was an appeal from a decision of a Provincial Court judge to enter ...

Ms. Cromie was issued a 24-hour driving prohibition after providing a breath sample to a police officer. On the same day, Ms. Cromie was served with a notice of driving prohibition pursuant to section 94.1 of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318. The adjudicator confirmed the driving prohibition against Ms. Cromie and Ms. Cromie appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that she had a right to cross-examine the arresting officer in front of the adjudicator. Ms. Cromie’s application for judicial review was dismissed.

24. December 2002 0
Administrative law – Judicial review application – Breach of procedural fairness – Motor vehicles – Suspension of driver’s licence – Adjudication – Right to cross-examine arresting officer Cromie v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2002] B.C.J. No. 2552, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 4, 2002, Melnick J. On April 6, 2002, Ms. Cromie was pulled ...