R. v. Singh, 2023 BCPC 89

Citation: R. v. Singh 2023 BCPC 89 Date: 20230131 File No: AJ15359814 Registry: New Westminster IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REX v. INDERPREET SINGH RULING ON A CHAMBERS APPLICATION PURSUANT TO S. 16(2) OFFENCE ACT OF THE JUDICIAL JUSTICE Z. MAKHDOOM

Date of Application: January 30, 2023 Date of Judgment: January 31, 2023 INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The accused, Mr. Inderpreet Singh of Surrey, BC, has been charged for the breach of two provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act , (1) drive without consideration contrary to s. 144(1) (b), and (2) fail to produce insurance, contrary to s. 81.

CHRONOLOGY [ 2 ] 19 October 2020: This violation ticket (VT) was served on the accused. [ 3 ] 19 November 2020: The matter was administratively deemed to have not been disputed following the lapse of 30 days available to the accused to dispute. [ 4 ] 26 March 2021: Pursuant to s. 16 (2) Offence Act of British Columbia the accused filed an affidavit seeking deemed conviction to be unwound.

His application lacked in any explanation as to why it had taken more than 4 months. [ 5 ] 30 March 2021: Judicial Justice Kinahan allowed the application dated 26 March 2021. [ 6 ] 03 November 2021: A hearing was scheduled in New Westminster Provincial Court. The accused missed this hearing and the matter was “deemed not disputed” by Judicial Justice Swift, conviction followed. [ 7 ] 25 November 2021: The accused filed an application on the grounds that he had moved effective 01 January 2021. The Notice of Hearing was apparently sent to their previous address.

Despite the fact the accused proffered no evidence as to what steps they had taken to ensure their mail is redirected to their new address, Judicial Justice LA Wall granted that application on 01 December 2021. The matter was put back on the docket. [ 8 ] 06 January 2022: New Notice of Hearing for 03 March 2022, was sent to the accused’s new address as it appears on their “Violation Ticket Change of Address”, dated 25 November 2021. [ 9 ] 03 March 2022: The accused did not appear for this hearing. Judicial Justice P.

Stabler deemed this VT as not disputed. [ 10 ] 08 June 2022: Pursuant to s.16 (2) , the accused submitted third application. Administrative Judicial Justice L. Plater, adjudicated that application and denied it on the grounds, (1) the requirements set out in sections 3 and 4 of the prescribed Affidavit were not satisfied, and, (2) the date of offence being October 2020 it is not in the interest of justice for this action to proceed. [ 11 ] 17 January 2023: The Honourable Mr. Justice Elwood of the BC Supreme Court set aside Admin JJ Plater’s foregoing denial. Respectfully, the order made by Mr.

Justice Elwood, remitting the matter back to the Provincial Court, lacked reasons. ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 12 ] I have considered Mr. Singh’s application and have familiarised myself with the contents of his affidavit signed on the 24 th day of January 2023. [ 13 ] Section 16(2) and the relevant subsection 2.1 of the Offence Act reads as follows

(2) Subject to subsection (3), if a person who (

a) is served with a violation ticket, and (

b) is convicted under

section 15 or deemed to have pleaded guilty under subsection (1) wishes to dispute the allegation or the amount of the fine, the person must apply to a justice and the justice, on being satisfied of the matters in subsection (2.1) by affidavit in the prescribed form and with or without hearing from the applicant, may make an order striking out the conviction, if any, and allowing the person to dispute the allegation or the amount of the fine portion of the ticketed amount in accordance with sections 15 to 15.4 .

(2.1) Before making an order under subsection (2) allowing a dispute to proceed, a justice must be satisfied that (

a) through no fault of the defendant, he or she did not have an opportunity to dispute the allegation or the amount of the fine, (

b) the defendant had a genuine intention to dispute the ticket before the dispute period under subsection (1) expired, (

c) no undue prejudice will result from the extension of the dispute period, (

d) the defendant has an arguable defence to the violation ticket, and (

e) it is in the interests of justice to allow the dispute to proceed. [Emphasis added] [ 14 ] While section 16(2) enables an accused person to make an application to have the matter put back on the docket, subsection 2.1

prescribes the requirements that a justice must consider when adjudicating applications made pursuant to s.16(2). [ 15 ] The aforementioned affidavit does not proffer any reasons why he wasn’t able to dispute the charge within 30 days of receiving the VT. In his affidavit dated 26 March 2021, he alludes to receiving the VT “…less than 30 days but officer that provided ticket wrote violation date incorrect”. Although he failed to further elaborate his point, JJ Kinahan allowed that application.

Lot of water has since passed below the bridge yet his most recent affidavit lacks any reasons why he failed to dispute the matter in time. I must refrain from second guessing my learned colleague Justice Kinahan’s reasons for allowing this application. [ 16 ] Mr. Singh has been charged with a fairly serious offence. As a young driver, he needs to be mindful of the fact that the process applied to grant him the privilege of driving could be reversed leading to the loss of that licence.

Yet he demonstrated a rather cavalier attitude in not addressing the requirements diligently. [ 17 ] Upon Justice Kinahan granting his application, the matter was scheduled for a hearing on the 3 rd of November 2021. The accused missed that hearing. [ 18 ] On 25 th of November 2021, he brought an application pursuant to s.15 (10) of the Offence Act . My learned colleague, Justice LA Wall allowed this application, the matter was placed on the active docket of the Court. The accused set out the reason for missing his hearing, “I relocated to new address did not receive Court date of Hearing date”.

Respectfully, in failing to inform the Court whether or not he had submitted any change of address notification, after all this was his second application, he demonstrated substantial lack of diligence. [ 19 ] The matter was scheduled for hearing on the 3 rd of March 2022. Mr. Singh failed to attend that hearing. On 7 th of March 2022, he submitted his third application to scheduling the case for hearing. In terms of demonstrating that they missed the hearing through no fault of their own, the accused wrote, “I had an injury or illness that prevented from attending Court”.

No supporting documentation was furnished. My learned colleague, Administrative Judicial Justice Plater denied that application. [ 20 ] Mr. Singh appealed Justice Plater’s denial. The appeal judge, Mr. Justice Elwood remitted the accused’s application to extend the 30 day period for the VT number AJ15359814 for “reconsideration by a different Judicial Justice at the New Westminster Traffic Court Registry, and upon reconsideration, to provide sufficient reasons for determination”. [ 21 ] These are the reasons that Mr.

Justice Elwood directed the reviewing JJ to provide after reconsideration. [ 22 ] This is a simple traffic case. Since the Crown proceeded by way of a violation ticket, there’s no likelihood that the accused would face a custodial sentence. The penalty for disobeying this strict liability matter is mainly financial and in the event of conviction, a driver with seriously adverse driving history may lose their licence or could be placed on probation. [ 23 ] Simplicity of the case notwithstanding, driving without consideration of others requires expeditious state response.

Inconsiderate driving behaviours or the state’s failure to expeditiously dispose of matters arising from such alleged behaviours have the potential for producing extremely harmful consequences for individuals or communities. The fatalities attributed to inconsiderate driving behaviours are hugely consequential to say the least; or, the injuries caused taxes our over-burdened socialised system of medicine.

How fair would be the usual refrain that since this is a “simple traffic matter”, we should simply shelve the usual judicial considerations and allow multiple frivolous applications brought by a demonstrably nonchalant accused? In my respectful view, all three previous applications brought in my Mr. Singh are frivolous. All of these lack substance, while demonstrating the accused’s abject nonchalant attitude towards, what one could surmise, participating in a hearing. [ 24 ] Public is genuinely concerned about the run-away costs of maintaining the state institutions.

How many kicks at the can a person should receive who is living in an urban centre with easy access to Courts and other state operated outlets, is obviously not financially hurting (was driving a 5-6 years old Acura vehicle), and has sufficient finances to retain counsel from a reputable law firm? [ 25 ] I am unaware of what kind of inquiries the Supreme Court judges make when hearing applications/appeals brought pursuant to the Judicial Review Procedures Act by the alleged traffic violators who miss their hearing dates or miss 30 days time allowed for disputing a charge or whose adjournment applications are denied by Judicial Justices; what role the Crown prosecutors play during those hearings?

Do they apprise the appeal judge about the antecedents and history of a case or the judge makes an order after hearing nothing from the Crown but only the accused’s lament? Imagine the cost to the tax-payer. Imagine the public safety and welfare consequences when government’s ability to monitor and curb driving behaviours is thwarted? Such regulations are laudably crafted by our legislatures or parliament in order to ensure public safety and welfare. [ 26 ] I’m mindful of the principles of natural justice. As well, I am alive to our Constitutional provisions.

The role of the state in these circumstances is to afford a sufficiently well-lit and well-signed pathway to the accused charged, irrespective of the severity of offences alleged. I’m also mindful of the caution often issued by our apex court, the Supreme Court of Canada, in cases such as R. v. City of Sault Ste Marie, or R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. especially cautioning the trial courts to refrain from imposing significantly onerous burdens and standards on the Crown. [ 27 ] Mr . Singh has hitherto received at least four kicks at the can.

Given his past conduct, I do not see any reasonable likelihood that this case will ever see the light of a hearing. Allowing this application would in all likelihood bring the administration of justice into disrepute. [ 28 ] Respectfully, Mr. Singh has not satisfied the requirements set out in s.16 (2.1). I’m denying his application. _____________________________

Judicial Justice Z. Makhdoom Provincial Court of British Columbia