R. v. Rashead Date:, 2011 BCPC 0094

Citation: R. v. Rashead Date: 20110421 2011 BCPC 0094 File No: AH51037200 Registry: Victoria IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. Amar RASHEAD REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF JUDICIAL JUSTICE OF THE PEACE H W GORDON Appearing for the Crown: Cst. Rados Appearing on their own behalf: Amar Rashead Place of Hearing: Victoria , B.C. Date of Hearing: March 17, 2011 Date of Judgment: April 21, 2011 Introduction [ 1 ] The disputant, Amar RASHEAD, was ticketed in Victoria with two charges under the Motor Vehicle Act , RSBC 1996 c. 319 for alleged offences on July 9, 2010. He was charged for (

a) driving without insurance, contrary to section 24(3)(

b) of the Act, and (

b) misuse of licence plates contrary to section 13(1)(

c) of the Act. [ 2 ] He pleaded not guilty to the first charge and guilty to the second. I heard the matter on March 17, 2011, at the end of which I reserved judgment. The issue raised in these Reasons for Judgment is in respect to charge 1: whether a repairer’s number plate must be attached to a vehicle when it is on the highway in order for Garage Policy insurance to be effective on that vehicle. The Legislation [ 3 ] Sections 24 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act , reads:

(3) A person must not drive or operate a motor vehicle or a trailer on a highway unless: (a) …; (

b) the motor vehicle and the trailer, if any, are insured under a valid and subsisting motor vehicle liability policy evidenced by an owner’s certificate. The Facts [ 4 ] The police were conducting a targeted enforcement campaign on either side of the Bay Street Bridge in Victoria. Sgt. Vermette was on the east side of the bridge looking for infractions and fellow officers were on the west side to stop west bound vehicles that were called by Sgt. Vermette. [ 5 ] About 4:30 pm on July 9, 2010, Mr. Rashead was driving west bound at that location when Sgt.

Vermette noted a red Mazda Protégé without a front licence plate. [ 6 ] Sgt. Vermette’s call was taken by Cst Rados on the west side of the bridge. She stopped the vehicle, driven by Mr. Rashead. On walking around the vehicle, she noted there was no plate on the front and the back plate had an expired decal. Cst Rados then asked Mr. Rashead for his driver’s licence and insurance. He produced his licence but could not produce the vehicle insurance. [ 7 ] Cst Rados then ran the number of the plate on the vehicle. It did not show as being associated with that vehicle.

She then ran the VIN and found that it showed the vehicle that was stopped as being registered to Mr. Rashead since two days prior. Mr. Rashead asked if he could have 10 minutes to go and obtain the insurance documents but Cst Rados declined his request and wrote the ticket, concluding that without any valid plates, no insurance would be effective. [ 8 ] Mr. Rashead operates an auto repair business in Victoria, and has for 25 years. He had acquired the Mazda Protégé from a customer and was in the process of repairing it. He wanted to take it on the road for a test drive and asked his son to put on a plate.

In error, he says, his son put on the wrong one. It should have been the repairer’s plate issued to Mr. Rashead under a Garage Policy of insurance. [ 9 ] I am satisfied from the evidence that Mr. Rashead had a valid Garage Policy of insurance issued by ICBC and a repairer’s plate associated with that policy. And I am also satisfied that except for the plate not being attached to the vehicle, that when stopped all of the conditions of the policy in which the vehicle may be used were complied with.

The issue is whether it is necessary for that repairer’s plate to be attached to the vehicle while it is on a highway in order for the policy to be effective. [ 10 ] I heard a similar case to this in 2009, and in which I gave written Reasons. That case is R. v. Reid 2009 BCPC 0100 . In that case, the Repairer’s plate had fallen off the vehicle as it was backed out of the garage.

In deciding that driving without a plate did not negate the effectiveness of the insurance, I said: [11] The sole issue is whether the repairer’s number plate must be attached to a vehicle when it is on the highway in order for the insurance to be effective on that vehicle.

I cannot find anything, either in the legislation or the insurance policy, which specifically provides that the plate must be attached for the insurance to be effective. [12] Approaching the issue from principle, and applying common sense, I find that not having the number plate attached does not invalidate the insurance coverage on the vehicle.

All of the other terms of the policy had been met: the GMC was under the care of West Yale Auto for repair, it was being driven on a highway by an employee of West Yale Auto for the purpose of testing, and it was not covered by any other vehicle liability insurance. [13] Insuring and licensing vehicles are separate but related requirements. A vehicle can be insured without it being licensed (when being stored, for instance). A vehicle probably cannot be licensed without being concurrently insured.

The Garage insurance policy is a blanket policy covering all vehicles being repaired by West Yale Auto that meet the conditions referred to in paragraph 7 above. I did not find anywhere in the

policy a condition that a number plate had to be attached to such a vehicle. [14] As a matter of both principle and common sense, it makes no sense that if a vehicle was driving on the highway and the number plate fell off, the insurance would at that moment cease to be effective. In my view that principle would extend to the situation where the number plate had not been attached to the vehicle in the first place. Driving on a highway without the required number plates attached is an offence. But committing that offence does not mean that the insurance policy on the vehicle is ineffective.

In the case of repairer’s plates, only one plate is required, on the rear of the vehicle. For other plates, two plates are usually required, front and rear. It surely defies principle and common sense to conclude that if one of the plates on a vehicle requiring two plates is missing, the insurance on that vehicle is thereby ineffective. The same conclusion would apply to single plated vehicles. It would require specific wording to find that insurance coverage ceases in those circumstances. [ 11 ] I was not aware at the time I gave judgment in Reid of a BC Supreme Court decision, The Queen v.

Acton ( Kamloops Registry No. 60456), a decision of Justice Blair given on May 21, 1999. The ticket was in respect of a trailer with an Alberta plate and for which the driver was unable to produce proof on insurance. At trial, the driver produced a BC garage policy. In reversing a decision of this Court, Justice Blair said: [5] The learned Justice of the Peace held one of those trailer plates ought to have been attached to the trailer and from that omission she concluded that the trailer was not insured under the garage automobile policy. [6] There is no

section in the Motor Vehicle Act to which I was directed that a trailer plate must be attached to a trailer in order to confirm that the trailer is insured under the garage automobile policy. [7] I conclude that there is no basis for the finding by the learned Justice of the Peace that the attachment of a trailer plate is a term of a policy. The evidence before the court from Ms. Acton included proof of insurance on the trailer in the form of a garage automobile policy and it was not therefore open to convict for an offence under section 24(3)(b). [ 12 ] For those reasons and on that authority, I acquit Mr.

Rashead of the charge of driving a vehicle on a highway without insurance. [ 13 ] Mr. Rashead pleaded guilty at trial to charge 2, misuse of a number plate contrary to

section 13)(1)(

c) of the Act, with a fine of $109. _____________________ H.W. Gordon Judicial Justice