Supreme court | Motor Vehicles
PROVINCIAL REGULATION
Evidence in addition to approved screening device result not required to support driving prohibition
W registered “warn” result on approved screening device. Police imposed three-day driving prohibition under s. 215.41(3.1) of provincial Motor Vehicles Act. Prohibition was upheld by delegate of Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. On judicial review, prohibition quashed on basis that more evidence was needed that W’s ability to drive was affected by alcohol. Court of Appeal restored prohibition. Appeal dismissed. Superintendent was correct not to require evidence in addition to ASD result.
Wilson v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) (Oct. 16, 2015, S.C.C., McLachlin C.J.C., Cromwell J., Moldaver J., Karakatsanis J., Wagner J., Gascon J., and Côté J., File No. 35959) Decision at 115 W.C.B. (2d) 57 was affirmed. 126 W.C.B. (2d) 567.
Evidence in addition to approved screening device result not required to support driving prohibition
W registered “warn” result on approved screening device. Police imposed three-day driving prohibition under s. 215.41(3.1) of provincial Motor Vehicles Act. Prohibition was upheld by delegate of Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. On judicial review, prohibition quashed on basis that more evidence was needed that W’s ability to drive was affected by alcohol. Court of Appeal restored prohibition. Appeal dismissed. Superintendent was correct not to require evidence in addition to ASD result.
Wilson v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) (Oct. 16, 2015, S.C.C., McLachlin C.J.C., Cromwell J., Moldaver J., Karakatsanis J., Wagner J., Gascon J., and Côté J., File No. 35959) Decision at 115 W.C.B. (2d) 57 was affirmed. 126 W.C.B. (2d) 567.
