Driving Law

Fresh off a court appearance, Kyla and Paul cover BC’s October 1 snow-tire rule and how routine compliance stops can lawfully lead to mandatory breath demands, then dig into the compounding chaos from ongoing job action: IRP hearings cancelled or pushed without consultation, a court petition filed and served, and a tentative hardship path for temporary licences while the case waits on tribunal reasons. They flag new confusion over where to pay tickets after ICBC reportedly stopped accepting payments, the ripple effects of a Canada Post strike on prohibition notices, licence and insurance renewals, and traffic-court scheduling, plus potential knock-on disruptions from sympathy actions like BC Ferries. To close out spooky season, the Ridiculous Driver of the Week is a real-life “phantom” — the helmeted F1 look-alike finally nabbed in his driveway after years of blasting along Czech highways. Check out the 'Lawyer Told Me Not To Talk To You' T-shirts and hoodies at Lawyertoldme.com and 'Sit Still Jackson' at si

This week on Driving Law, Kyla and Paul unpack how BC’s public-sector job action has frozen Immediate Roadside Prohibition hearings and delayed decisions, leaving drivers punished without a path to challenge. They explain why blanket adjournments without dates breach procedural fairness, the legal demands made to the Superintendent and Solicitor General, and a test-case petition filed to push back against government inaction. Finally, the Ridiculous Drivers of the Week are political: BC’s finance minister racks up six thousand dollars in limo charges on a US trip, and Ontario’s premier calls traffic cameras a cash grab after years of backing them. Check out the 'Lawyer Told Me Not To Talk To You' T-shirts and hoodies at Lawyertoldme.com and 'Sit Still Jackson' at sitstilljackson.com

Kyla is joined by forensic consultant (and former Saskatoon police officer/paramedic) Jan Semenoff to unpack continuous alcohol monitoring—ignition interlocks, SCRAM ankle bracelets, and Soberlink—and why so many people get flagged for “violations” even when they haven’t been drinking. Jan shares real cases (a fleeting 0.031 spike; a SCRAM reading hit by Static Guard on a blanket; bar staff getting ambient-alcohol alerts) to show how products, workplaces, illness, ketosis, and diabetes can confound fuel-cell devices. His solution: My CAM Program—a practical course for monitored clients with short videos, readable modules, reflective quizzes, and a 100-page downloadable guide with logbooks and checklists. It teaches best practices (true deprivation periods, avoiding alcohol-containing products near tests, handling cold meds), offers condition-specific modules, and stays accessible for the full monitoring term so users can refresh before problems arise. The goal is prevention and better records to help lawyers

Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko open with Ottawa’s decision to pause Canada’s 2026 EV sales target and launch a 60-day review. They weigh the policy and trade crosswinds—auto-maker pressure, U.S. tariffs, Chinese EV competition, and new biofuel incentives—asking what a reset means for drivers, enforcement, and the market. They then unpack a fresh Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision on “refusal” that re-affirms classic criminal-law principles: after a lawful ASD demand, the Crown must still prove a subjective intent to thwart the breath test—not merely a failed sample—before any “reasonable excuse” analysis. The ruling clarifies mens rea and pushes back on attempts to make refusal quasi-strict liability. Next, an Ontario trial ruling tackles s.10(b) in the smartphone era: when a detainee asks to find a specific lawyer, police must provide meaningful access to information—often supervised internet access—not just an outdated directory. Where access to counsel is denied, the actus reus of refusal isn’t made out

This week on Driving Law, Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko break down a case that raised eyebrows in Vancouver traffic court. A man riding an electric one-wheel skateboard was fined nearly $600 for operating without insurance, despite the fact that these devices can’t be insured at all. At trial, the judicial justice hearing the case had previously recused himself from similar matters for openly admitting bias against skateboarders—yet allowed this one to proceed, resulting in a conviction. On appeal, the lack of fairness was recognized as a miscarriage of justice, sending the case back for a new hearing. Kyla and Paul also discuss the legal grey zone of one-wheeled electric vehicles, why insurance rules effectively keep them off the roads, and the broader issues of access, fairness, and bias in the court system. Finally, the Ridiculous Driver of the Week comes from Mississauga, where a young driver was spotted cruising down the highway with a full set of metal stairs strapped to the roof of her car—straight ou

This week on Driving Law, Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko dissect three important developments in driving law and public accountability in BC. They begin with a major delay in the ICBC double billing class action, where a technical objection from the provincial government—challenging the scope of the claim based on how “medical practitioners” was defined—has thrown the case off course. Kyla and Paul criticize the government’s interference, noting how procedural nitpicking is undermining access to justice and stalling compensation for affected individuals. Next, breaking news hits mid-recording: the BC Court of Appeal has released a decision upholding an acquittal in a red-light fatality case involving a dangerous driving charge. Paul and Kyla unpack how the Court’s ruling reaffirms that a momentary lapse in attention—without more—is not enough to meet the legal standard for dangerous driving. The decision marks an important pushback against the expanding scope of criminal liability in driving cases. Finally,

This week on Driving Law, Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko dive into a fiery road rage case in Surrey, where a driver jumped out, pepper sprayed another motorist, and sped off through a red light—all caught on dashcam. They discuss how the police may pursue charges, what kind of evidence they need, and why some road rage incidents cross the legal line. Next, they analyze a major Supreme Court victory for Uber drivers in Vancouver. The city’s controversial bylaw that charged per-stop fees downtown was struck down as unconstitutional. Paul and Kyla explore the court’s reasoning and the broader implications for municipal power and provincial jurisdiction. Finally, they review this week’s Ridiculous Driver of the Week—a suspected drunk driver who flipped a Jeep on Highway 3, nearly crashing into an oncoming car. Despite the crash, police issued only an Immediate Roadside Prohibition. Kyla and Paul criticize the growing reliance on IRPs, especially in serious cases where criminal charges might be more appropriate.

This week on Driving Law, Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko discuss an unprecedented roadside drug enforcement campaign at the Shambhala Music Festival, where police used a mobile lab to take 24 blood samples on-site — likely a Canadian first. They examine the legal, procedural, and privacy issues this raises for impaired driving investigations. Next, they turn to Edmonton, where police uncovered more than $200,000 in fraudulent insurance claims tied to ten tow truck companies. The case exposes systemic abuse in the towing industry and the lack of effective oversight. Finally, the Ridiculous Driver of the Week is a Nanaimo motorcyclist caught on video violently shoving a cyclist off the road. Kyla and Paul break down the legal implications and the broader concerns for vulnerable road user safety. Check out the 'Lawyer Told Me Not To Talk To You' T-shirts and hoodies at Lawyertoldme.com and 'Sit Still Jackson' at sitstilljackson.com.

This week on Driving Law, Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko discuss the legal fallout from a major mix-up in the U.S., where cans of non-alcoholic Celsius energy drink were filled with alcohol. They examine how this could create a viable “involuntary intoxication” defense for unsuspecting drivers who blow over the limit. They also cover a disturbing Alberta case where a Mormon woman was issued a 90-day prohibition after failing to provide a breath sample—despite later discovering she had two broken ribs. Kyla and Paul argue that the refusal process systemically discriminates against people with disabilities, women, and minorities, and call for the reactivation of manual testing features on roadside devices. The Ridiculous Driver of the Week is an RCMP officer who got their SUV high-centered on a parking lot divider and had to be towed, all caught on TikTok. Check out the 'Lawyer Told Me Not To Talk To You' T-shirts and hoodies at Lawyertoldme.com and 'Sit Still Jackson' at sitstilljackson.com.

This week on Driving Law, Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko discuss Vancouver’s decision to extend bar hours to 4 a.m., raising concerns about transit access and impaired driving enforcement at a time when the city’s traffic unit is severely depleted. They explore how the change could affect public safety, particularly in the absence of roadblocks and routine DUI checks. Next, they examine a series of questionable policing decisions involving Constable Keith McCready of the Prince George RCMP, including issuing IRPs in odd circumstances. Public backlash intensified after an arson site near a weigh scale was tagged with graffiti: “Good job McCready.” Kyla and Paul reflect on community trust, internal misconduct, and the difficulty of holding officers accountable. They also dissect a troubling video from Florida showing a Black man violently pulled from his car during a traffic stop despite being compliant—another example of systemic issues in policing. The Ridiculous Driver of the Week is a man in Brampton caugh

This week on Driving Law, Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko unpack a major BC Supreme Court decision that strikes down an Immediate Roadside Prohibition due to flawed and speculative reasoning by the Superintendent’s office. The case involved a driver who claimed that chewing tobacco remained in his mouth during a breath test. The adjudicator dismissed his explanation based on assumptions about police training and stereotypical beliefs about how a person “should” behave. The court rejected this reasoning, calling it unjustified, unintelligible, and lacking transparency. Kyla and Paul explain why this decision is a rare but important win against the reverse-engineered logic often used to uphold IRPs. Next, they discuss a Toronto Sun article claiming BC has the highest rate of impaired driving in Canada. Despite the province’s “toughest drunk driving laws,” the data may reflect the sheer volume of IRPs issued—not actual impairment. They explore whether the statistics signal a policy failure and question the effect

This week on Driving Law, Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko tackle three pressing issues shaping public safety and traffic policy in Canada. They begin with Vancouver’s proposed 30 km/h speed limit on side streets, part of the Vision Zero push. Paul questions its practicality and lack of enforcement, while Kyla explains why speed isn't the only factor in pedestrian safety—driver behavior is key. Next, they examine the Hinkson Report, released in response to the Lapu-Lapu Day tragedy. The report offers immediate recommendations to protect public events from vehicle attacks. Kyla and Paul weigh in on the logistics, funding, and feasibility of the proposals. Finally, the Ridiculous Driver of the Week is a Saskatoon man who stole a taxi, robbed a store, and fled in a cube van. The police chase ended safely, but the case is a cautionary tale about impaired decisions and their legal fallout. Check out the 'Lawyer Told Me Not To Talk To You' T-shirts and hoodies at Lawyertoldme.com and 'Sit Still Jackson' at sitstill

In this episode, Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko dive into Transport Canada’s new restrictions on ferrying damaged electric vehicles, explore the implications of Uber drivers unionizing in Victoria, and share the story of how an RCMP trailer sparked a wildfire due to failed wheel bearings.

This week on Driving Law, Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko dig into a BC Supreme Court appeal involving a man convicted of using a bobcat to threaten two unhoused individuals on his property. The appeal raised arguments of burden-shifting, misapprehension of evidence, and speculative reasoning—but the court upheld the conviction. The judges found that the trial decision was supported by tire track evidence and the logical inference that the complainant was struck by the bobcat, rejecting the alternative “heatstroke” explanation as unsupported. They then turn to a traffic court case involving a Charter section 11(b) delay application. A driver who disputed a ticket for using an electronic device waited over 20 months for trial. Judge Guild found the delay presumptively unreasonable and dismissed the ticket. The decision criticizes the government’s reliance on mailed notices and suggests disclosure should be automatic once a ticket is disputed, rather than provided only upon request. Finally, the Ridiculous Drive

This week on Driving Law, Paul Doroshenko takes the wheel while Kyla is away in court, joined by articled students Alice and Alison for a special in-car recording from his 1953 Buick. The episode kicks off with a reflective discussion about what the students have learned during their time at the firm—covering complex topics like BC's Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) scheme, the science and limitations of breath testing, and the often-overlooked role that language barriers and misinformation play in roadside legal encounters. They then dive into a fascinating Ontario case where a driver failed an ASD (Approved Screening Device) breath test shortly after consuming alcohol at a liquor store. After realizing the initial result may be invalid, police conducted a second test without a fresh demand. Paul and the students unpack the Charter implications—particularly Section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and Section 10(b) (right to counsel)—and debate whether the second test was lawful or a rights violation

This week on Driving Law, Kyla and Paul tackle a dynamic mix of personal experience, legal news, and constitutional issues making waves across Canada. Kyla opens the episode with a near-death experience on the Alex Fraser Bridge after unsecured plywood flew off a truck—an incident that underscores the real dangers of unsafe loads and distracted transport. The story sets the tone for a discussion on enforcement methods and public safety. They then analyze Ontario’s controversial speed camera program in Vaughan, where 32,000 tickets were issued in just three weeks. Despite the staggering volume, the city has temporarily paused fines, replacing them with warnings while reevaluating the system’s effectiveness. Kyla and Paul debate the merits and pitfalls of automated enforcement and the due process challenges it presents for drivers. Next, they cover Surrey’s new “Project Rogue Racers”—a year-long crackdown on illegal street racing events. With dozens of tickets, vehicle impounds, and bylaw infractions already

This week on Driving Law, Kyla and Paul delve into a trio of compelling legal topics with wide-reaching implications. First, Kyla discusses a fresh Supreme Court of Canada ruling on miscarriages of justice, focusing on whether appellate courts can enter acquittals in cases where post-plea evidence reveals a wrongful conviction. The decision stems from a case involving undisclosed exculpatory evidence, and the outcome confirms courts can enter an acquittal if a new trial is unnecessary. Then, they explore the disciplinary suspension of a BC lawyer who received a 90-day IRP and attempted to leverage his status to avoid consequences—an act deemed "conduct unbecoming" by the Law Society. Kyla and Paul unpack the implications for lawyers and other regulated professionals who blur the lines between personal misconduct and professional ethics. Finally, they revisit the Bajwa case, where a man with a long history of driving prohibitions was filmed using the toilet at a police station after his arrest. Despite the

This week on Driving Law, Kyla and Paul examine two compelling legal stories from British Columbia and Saskatchewan. First, they explore a BC Supreme Court case involving a man who paid a speeding ticket after receiving misleading information from ICBC—only to later lose his license due to accumulated penalty points. Kyla and Paul unpack why his attempt to withdraw his guilty plea failed, and how different legal arguments, including officially induced error, might have changed the outcome. Next, they analyze a landmark constitutional challenge to Canada’s mandatory alcohol screening laws. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upheld the controversial law under Section 1 of the Charter, despite finding that it infringed on drivers’ rights under Section 8. Kyla and Paul discuss the reasoning behind the majority decision, the sharp dissent warning of potential abuse, and whether this case might head to the Supreme Court of Canada. Check out the 'Lawyer Told Me Not To Talk To You' T-shirts and hoodies at Lawyertold

This week on Driving Law, Kyla and Paul unpack the backlash Kyla faced after explaining a cyclist's legal obligations in a Global News story. What began as a simple clarification of BC's Motor Vehicle Act sparked outrage and personal attacks—highlighting the rising hostility toward legal discourse online. They then examine a tragic Surrey case where a man was fatally run over and dragged by a Mustang. Two young men face sentencing, including the car’s owner who wasn’t driving. Kyla and Paul explore the unusual legal arguments and the broader implications for driving offences. Finally, they debunk a viral fake news story claiming Canada is banning hands-free calls, eating, and adjusting dials while driving. Kyla explains why these alleged federal rules are impossible under Canada’s constitutional division of powers. Check out the 'Lawyer Told Me Not To Talk To You' T-shirts and hoodies at Lawyertoldme.com and 'Sit Still Jackson' at sitstilljackson.com.

This week on Driving Law, Kyla and Paul review two BC Supreme Court cases that highlight the risks of representing yourself in traffic court. First, they unpack the failed appeal of a driver who claimed he was interacting with his truck’s console—not a phone—when ticketed for distracted driving, and how a lack of courtroom experience undermined his defence. Then, they analyze a judicial review involving a rejected late dispute application—complete with a single stamped reason: “No arguable defence”—and why that was upheld despite arguments about inadequate reasoning. Later in the episode, Erik Magraken delivers a pointed Magraken Moment on the lack of accountability for ICBC and the BC government in the aftermath of the Lapu Lapu festival tragedy. He argues that victims are being denied justice under BC’s no-fault system while Premier David Eby publicly vilifies the accused. Kyla and Paul break down the political and legal consequences, including how no-fault laws strip victims of their right to compensation