This case is out of Kamloops, B.C. where Philip Dolson disputed a violation ticket for operating his Jeep without proper doors. In this instance he had replaced the OEM doors on his vehicle with tube doors. The tube doors are described by the manufacturer as off roading equipment.
Decision on Using Tube Doors
Judicial Justice Hughes examines the Motor Vehicle Act Regulations with regard to doors and explains why he convicted Mr. Dolson:
[14] It is my conclusion that the section requires that the doors supplied with the vehicle or identical replacement doors are what is required to be on the vehicle when driving on a highway as defined by the MVA. I would describe the “Adventure Doors” as gates and not a solid door which vehicles are usually manufactured with. It is a series of tubes with nothing solid connecting them, to form a “barrier” as is referenced in the definition of door. There is nothing to prevent the exhaust gasses from entering the passenger compartment, which is a requirement of the Inspection Standards. There is no structural integrity would be provided by the sheet metal and other materials used to make the solid door which would provide protection to the person seated in the vehicle in the event there was a collision and the second vehicle struck beside where the passenger was sitting. There is no mention of any airbags in the “Adventure Doors” which are now standard features in newer model vehicles to increase the protection offered by a solid door, nor safety glass used in windows. Even the description of the “Adventure Doors” on the manufacturer’s web site indicates they are for “off-roading”. It is my opinion that it is implicit in the MVAR, that the doors being referred to, are the doors which were supplied with the vehicle, by the manufacturers, solid doors, constructed to the industry safety standards, which complies with provincial legislation and not after-market additions which, by their manufacturers own admission, are for off-roading.
Learn More
Share This Article
Update March 14, 2025:
According to the Kamloops court registry, this conviction was overturned on appeal. This judgment has not been published. Please note that having a decision overturned does NOT mean that it is legal to use tube doors!
You might want to update this, as I just had a conversation with someone who was operating on the assumption that tube doors were okay because of the claim here the decision was overturned.
From a properly connected person:
"I was able to look up what happened on appeal. It seems it was never heard on the merits but that Mr Dolson made a deal to plead to speeding in exchange for the door ticket being dropped."
This means the provincial court decision remains good law and the proper advice to give to jeepers is to keep your factory doors on while on roads or FSRs."
- Log in to post comments
Unfortunately, a search of Supreme Court decisions does not find a result. This means either the information that it was appealed is not correct or the decision was not reported.
This is a good illustration of making a decision based on incomplete information. While the decision might have been overturned on appeal, it is not confirmation that the accused did not break the law. Sometimes it is dismissed because the Crown did not prove the case sufficiently.
- Log in to post comments
In this case, it was a Crown attorney who passed on the information, so I'd tend to trust what he told me... which narrows it down to "the decision was not reported".
But you are correct, it's a good illustration of the perils of making decisions based on incomplete information.
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
Reasons for conviction being overturned.