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. vs. D.A. – Kelowna Provincial Court

Charges: Assault with a Weapon; Obstruct Police Officer.
Issue: Despite the very serious nature of the offence (threatening to cause serious harm at knifepoint) whether a jail sentence was the appropriate sentence.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to direct our client through an intensive course of rehabilitation, and was ultimately able to persuade Crown counsel and the Court to grant our client a conditional sentece to be served in the community in a residential tratment facility. No jail.

R. vs. R.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the extensive rehabilitation effort of our client, whether it was appropriate for the court to grant our client a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the Court that provocation was a significant factor and that, despite kicking the complainant, the appropriate sentence was a discharge on condition of "no contact" for 12 months. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. O.A. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Criminal Harassment (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given our client's significant self-rehabilitation, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to end the criminal prosecution and to resolve the matter with a s. 810 Recognizance ("Peace Bond"). No criminal record.

R. vs. P.A.N. – West Vancouver Police Investigation

Charge: Fraud (from employer).
Issue: Given our client's cooperation with authorities and willingness to repay the alleged misappropriated funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the police investigator to refer the file to Restorative Justice rather than arresting our client and recommending a criminal prosecution. No charge was approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in  the public interest continue with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed with a Peace Bond rather than the criminal assault charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.Q. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Mischief to Property.
Issue: After Mr. Gauthier was able to facilitate making restitution on our client's belf, whether it was in the public interest top proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Results: Crown counsel accepted Mr. Gauthier's representations and concluded the matter by entering a stay of proceedings. no criminal record.

R. vs. A.V. – Duncan Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Johnston was able to provide to Crown counsel about our client's circumstances and the significant rehabilitation steps we were able to guide him through, whether it remained in the public interest to continue with the prosecution.
Result: Crown counsel accepted Mr. Johnston's representations and concluded the matter by entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.J. – Chilliwack Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether a criminal prosecution was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed pursuant to a s. 810 Peace Bond, and to enter a stay of proceedings on the criminal charge. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court placed our client on the Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. v. Q.C. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge: Insurance fraud over $5000 investigation.
Issue: Given our client's rehabilitation and repayment of disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the Insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charhges were forwarded. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.K. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; assault with a weapon; breach of undertaking (x2); attempting to take weapon from police.
Issue: Whether our client's personal circumstances and positive rehabilitative steps made him a good candidate for a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed only on the common assault charge and to stay proceedings on the remaining four criminal charges. After hearing Mr. Mines'submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge and placed him on probation for 12 months. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. A.S. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Fraud Over $5,000 (x4); Theft Over $5,000 (x4).
Issue: Given that full restitution was made and that our client had taken significant steps toward self-rehabilitation, whether jail was the appropriate sentence for this $240,000 employee fraud.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to facilitate the restitution payment and provided medical information to Crown counsel on our client's behalf. Ultimately Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to  jointly  recommend a non-custodial sentence. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, our client was granted a 2 year less a day conditional senntence.. No jail.

R. vs. R.B. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault Causing Bodily Harm (reduced to assault).
Issue: Whether the caselaw supported our client receiving a conditional discharge for this domestic assault case in which the coplainant sustained a significant injury.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide Crown counsel with information about our client and a number of case authorities which resulted in Crown agreeing to proceed on assault simpliciter  and to make a joint recommendation for a conditional discharge, which was accepted by the court.
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