R. v. Dolson Date:, 2014 BCPC 5

Citation: R. v. Dolson Date: 20140120 2014 BCPC 0005 File No: AH653342413-1 Registry: Kamloops IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. PHILIP HAMISH DOLSON REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE JUDICIAL JUSTICE J.E. HUGHES Appearing for the Crown: Constable K. Prentice Appearing on their own behalf: Mr. Philip Hamish Dolson Place of Hearing: Kamloops , B.C. Date of Hearing: September 18, 2013 Date of Judgment: January 20, 2014

[ 1 ] The facts in this case are not in dispute. The question is whether the “after market” product, marketed as “Adventure Doors” by Warrior Products, complies with the Motor Vehicle Act Regulation ( MVAR ) B.C. Reg 26/58 , s. 7.09(1): s. 7.09

(1) Subject to subsection (2), the standards of safety and repair set out in the

schedule to this Division shall be standards of safety and repair of motor vehicles and trailers for the purpose of the Act and these regulations. [ 2 ]

Section 7.09 (2) sets out exemptions to

section 1 and none are applicable. [ 3 ]

Schedule “Standards for the Approval of a Motor Vehicle (Standards) s.11 Door, body, hood Doors - Doors shall be installed in a vehicle where the vehicle was manufactured with doors . The doors with which a vehicle is equipped shall be in good working order, and any hinge, latch, or handle must not be broken, missing or inoperable. The doors shall not be warped, twisted or weakened to the extent that a slight jar will open them. A door shall be capable of being opened and closed with normal effort. (emphasis added) [ 4 ] Mr.

Dolson admits the Jeep he was driving on May 31, 2012 was “manufactured with doors” but on the date in question he had equipped his vehicle with the “Adventure Doors” and he would prefer to use those rather than the doors the vehicle came equipped with. A photo of the vehicle equipped with the after-market “Adventure Doors” is attached as Appendix 1. [ 5 ] I was provided with a print out of the web page for Warrior Products picturing the same structure as in the photo, and indicating that accessories for the Adventure Doors such as Mesh & Padding Kits were available for purchase.

The description of the Adventure Doors state it fits 2007 to 2013 Jeep JK Wrangler. “Designed to replace the vehicle’s full or half doors, Adventure Doors provide additional protection to front seat occupants while off-roading ” (emphasis added). Attached as Appendix 2. [ 6 ] I was also provided with a Commercial Vehicle Safety & Enforcement, Vehicle Safety and Standards Bulletin, Bulletin #1 - 2008 August 7, 2008 (Bulletin). The bulletin talks about vehicles operating on the highway without the driver or passenger doors in place, most commonly Jeeps, as these vehicles have side doors that may be easily removed.

It goes on to say that the CVSE has determined only the Jeep CJ manufactured prior to 1986 may have been manufactured without doors as original equipment. The Bulletin states “any vehicle operating on highway without doors represents a serious safety concern for the occupants as side intrusion protection and passenger containment would be compromised in the event of a collision”. This Bulletin is attached as Appendix 3. [ 7 ] I am also aware that the Vehicle Inspection Regulation , B.C. Reg 256/2010 has a

schedule which sets out the standards which a vehicle must meet to be licensed in British Columbia. This regulation has a

Schedule “Vehicle Inspection Manual” which is exempt from publication but is available online from Crown Publications. The relevant

section of the “Vehicle Inspection Guide” is the

chapter on “Light Vehicle Inspection Manual”, s.8 Body, ss.6 Doors. In this

section inspectors are directed to look for; (e) “seals” and to reject the vehicle if the seals are “missing, deteriorated or positioned so as to allow exhaust gasses to enter the passenger compartment”, (h) “door panel” and to reject the vehicle if the door panel is “repaired in a manner that compromises structural integrity, repaired other than by an approved standard and process”. These sections lead me to conclude that it is important that the exhaust gasses not be allowed to enter the passenger compartment and that the door panel be intact to provide structural integrity. This

section is attached as Appendix 4. [ 8 ] The Motor Vehicle Act , R.S.B.C. 1996, c.318 defines highway very broadly and would include every road and parking lot which is public, and on private property, any place the public has access or is invited to. [ 9 ] Neither the MVA nor the MVAR define door. In the Oxford Canadian Dictionary © Oxford University Press Canada 1998, door is defined as “a hinged, sliding, or revolving barrier for closing and opening an entrance…” [ 10 ] When interpreting a statute it is necessary to look at the entire statute and its regulations to determine the objective of the statute and interpret the

section or word in a manner that complies with the intention of the statute. My conclusion is that the MVA and MVAR are written with the goal of safety in mind and accordingly regulate who drives, how we must drive and the equipment we use when driving. [ 11 ] I am aware that the CVSE Bulletin is not law nor should I automatically accept it as the government’s written intent of how the regulatory scheme should be applied by the courts. It is however, direction to the Government’s employees and the peace officers of the province, of how and why the CVSE branch wishes the laws to be enforced.

It emphasizes that the restriction is for safety reasons and specifically mentions that without the doors there would be less protection in the event of a side intrusion collision and “passenger containment would be compromised in the event of a collision”. My conclusion is that this Bulletin refers to the doors the vehicle was manufactured with. [ 12 ] Mr. Dolson pointed out that the aftermarket “Adventure Doors” were in good working order and all hinges, latches and handles were functional as is required in s.11 of the Standards for the Approval of a Motor Vehicle as referenced in paragraph 2 above.

However that is not the only consideration. [ 13 ] It is a principle of statutory

interpretation that the government is presumed to mean what is said in statutes. If the government

intended that doors, other than those “the vehicle was manufactured with” (s. 11 Standards) be allowed they would have included words to that effect. They did not. Any other

interpretation would result in an inconsistency within the section. That cannot have been the government’s intent. [ 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. _______________________ J.E. Hughes Judicial Justice