LexisNexis Home
Abonnés :
 
Concernant Quicklaw
Formation et soutien
Communiquer avec un responsable des comptes
Soutien à la clientèle
Facultés de droit
Demande d’informations supplémentaires
Adhérer à Quicklaw
JuriCiteMC avec Auto Link
Accueil > Service d'actualité juridique LAW/NETMC
Fil RSS Mises à jour RSS

Service d'actualité juridique LAW/NETMC
 
 
Digest: Kenyon v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles)


[2014] B.C.J. No. 191

British Columbia Supreme Court
T.M. McEwan J.

February 3, 2014.
(63 paras.)


   Transportation law — Motor vehicles and highway traffic — Liability — Licence suspension and cancellation — Administrative licence suspension — Conditions precedent — Application by Kenyon for judicial review of a decision of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles upholding an immediate 90-day roadside prohibition issued by a police officer allowed — Applicant admitted that he was intoxicated but claimed he was not a driver as he had no car keys — Officer's evidence that he saw van moving was unconfirmed — Prohibition was revoked — Crucial evidence as to whether applicant had the car keys was lacking — Superintendent's resort to peripheral credibility tests was both methodologically and substantively unsound.

   Application by Kenyon for judicial review of a decision of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles upholding an immediate 90-day roadside prohibition issued by a police officer. Police received a complaint of a naked man running on the road. A witness pointed police to a van that the officer claimed was moving slowly. The officer stopped the van and found the applicant in the driver's seat completely naked. The applicant showed signs of impairment and failed the roadside test. The applicant admitted being intoxicated but claimed that he was not the driver as he had no car keys. He was waiting for the woman who had driven his car and taken the keys to return when the officer approached him. The applicant had been intimate with the woman and was thus naked.
The Superintendent did not find the applicant's evidence credible.

HELD: Application allowed. The prohibition was revoked. The Superintendent in this case was confronted with an evidentiary record that lacked crucial evidence as to whether the applicant had the means to put the vehicle in motion. There was no evidence to support the officer's claim that he saw the van in motion. There was no evidence, despite two searches of the vehicle, that the keys were at the scene. The Superintendent's resort to a series of peripheral credibility tests was both methodologically and substantively unsound. This was a case that could not safely be decided on the evidence available.

 

Haut de page

 

Avis juridique | Confidentialité | Copyright 2006 LexisNexis Canada inc. Tous droits réservés.