Focus On

PROCEEDINGS - Appeals and judicial review

Wednesday, October 16, 2019 @ 2:58 AM  


Lexis Advance® Quicklaw®
Application by Budd for judicial review of a decision by an adjudicator appointed by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. The decision confirmed the decision of a police officer to issue a 90-day driving prohibition after Budd’s two breath samples both registered a fail. The officer found Budd in a vehicle parked on a grassy area adjacent to the highway and noted a strong odour of liquor. When Budd was asked why he was parked on the grass adjacent to the road rather than in one of the nearby designated parking stalls, he said he was answering his emails. He admitted that he drove the vehicle to where it was sitting. Budd took the position that he was not a “driver” because he was not on a “highway” at the time of his interactions with the police officer. He further submitted that the immediate roadside prohibition scheme under the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) had no application.

HELD: Application dismissed. There was no issue that Budd had care and control of the motor vehicle. Budd expressly admitted to the police officer that he drove. The adjudicator’s interpretation of what constituted a “driver” under section 215.41 of the MVA was within the reasonable outcomes. There was no unexplained gap in time that the adjudicator failed to address in her reasons. The adjudicator did not impose a remedy in the absence of jurisdiction.

Budd v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [2019] B.C.J. No. 1673, British Columbia Supreme Court, S. Wilson J., September 5, 2019. Digest No. TLD-October142019005