Case Law

This is a Small Claims Court case where Mr. Lee is attempting to recover damages from Mr. Cheuck following a minor motor vehicle collision where ICBC found both parties partially at fault. Both parties were proceeding in the same direction some distance apart. Both intended to turn right at the intersection ahead. Mr.

In this case Mr. Gotsutsov's vehicle was destroyed by fire. ICBC found nothing in its investigations to substantiate Mr. Gotsutsov’s involvement in the loss of the vehicle by fire. ICBC however maintains that insurance coverage under the policy is forfeited because Mr. Gotsutsov allegedly made a willfully false statement in respect of the claim.

This is still another example of a Charter argument for unreasonable delay with regard to a dispute hearing for a traffic ticket. In this case, the delay amounted to 13 months and 3 weeks and Mr. Podger was successful in showing that the delay caused a prejudice to his ability to conduct his defence. A judicial stay of proceedings was entered on the charge.

This is another case of a Charter argument over delay in proceeding to trial. The speeding ticket dispute took 17 1/2 months from offence to trial date and Mr. Pearson testified that this was too long, causing him serious prejudice. Rather than letting the judge infer the prejudice from the time period alone, Mr.

This case discusses care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired. The woman, seat belted in the driver's position, was the only occupant of an idling vehicle parked at the curb. Investigation by ambulance paramedics and police revealed that the woman did not have a medical problem and was impaired by alcohol.

The case of R v Drummond examines a Charter of Rights argument that a delay of 17 months from the offence date to the trial date for a traffic violation ticket is unreasonable. Grant Drummond was served with a traffic ticket for excessive speed, tinted windows and failing to wear a seatbelt on August 1, 2007. He filed a dispute of all counts within the 30 day time period.

A car owner is not successful in a claim against ICBC for a total loss of their vehicle. The court finds that the owner made misrepresentation to the corporation about who actually owned and was the principal operator of the vehicle and was then involved in the theft and burning of it.

This is a tragic case where a rear end collision resulted in the death of a taxi driver and severe burns to his passenger when the taxi caught fire post collision. The driver who caused the collision was charged for driving without due care and attention.

The accused was stopped at a roadblock about midnight by police checking for driving infractions. An officer immediately noted that his eyes were bloodshot and watery and he had a mild to moderate odour of liquor on his breath. She read the accused the approved screening device demand and he blew a “Warn”, which indicated his blood alcohol level was between 50mg% and 100mg%.