Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act

Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act

SCCInfoBox
case-name=Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act
full-case-name=Reference re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act
heard-date=November 15, 1984
decided-date=December 17, 1985
citations= [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486
docket=17590
history=On appeal from the BCCA
ruling= Appeal was dismissed
ratio=
SCC=1984-1985
Majority=Lamer J. (paras. 1-98)
JoinMajority=Dickson C.J. and Beetz, Chouinard and Le Dain JJ.
Concurrence=McIntyre J. (paras. 99-100)
Concurrence2=Wilson J. (paras. 101-131)
NotParticipating=Ritchie and Estey JJ.
LawsApplied=

"Reference re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act", [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486 was a landmark reference submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the constitutionality of the British Columbian "Motor Vehicles Act". The decision established one of the first principles of fundamental justice in the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms", beyond mere natural justice, by requiring a "mens rea" component for all offences with penal consequences. The decision also proved important and controversial for establishing fundamental justice as more than a procedural right similar to due process, but also protects substantive rights even though such rights were counter to the intent of the initial drafters of the "Charter". [This distinction was later relied upon in the "R. v. Morgentaler" (1988) decision and then "Chaoulli v. Quebec" (2006).]

Background

Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act of British Columbia created an Absolute Liability offence of driving while with a suspended licence. To obtain a conviction, the Crown only needed to establish proof of driving regardless of whether the driver was aware of the suspension or not. A successful conviction carried a prison term of a minimum of seven days.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the Act violated a principle of fundamental justice under section 7 of the Charter.

Reasons of the Court

Justice Lamer, writing for a unanimous court, held that any absolute liability offence which deprives the right to life, liberty or security of the person violates the principles of fundamental justice. Any deprivation of life, liberty, or security of person from an absolute liability offence offends the Charter. It is only through reasons of public interest can such offences be saved through section 1 of the Charter.

The Crown failed to show that the public interest of ridding the roads of bad drivers could be proportional to the limiting of people's rights by imprisoning them.

In surveying means of interpreting the constitution, Lamer dismissed the practice of relying on the testimony of the original drafters of the Constitution as interpretive aids, effectively rejecting the use of an original intent approach to Constitutional interpretation. Reference was made to the living tree doctrine in this regard. [Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, para. 53.] The Court also rejected the more restricted definition of fundamental justice under the Canadian Bill of Rights, as described in "Duke v. The Queen" (1972).

The Court noted that the alternative view of fundamental justice as natural justice would have been an easier requirement for the government to satisfy. This would limit the rights to life, liberty, and security of person, or, as the Supreme Court put it, place these rights "in a sorely emaciated state." Liberty, for example, would be seen as not as comprehensive a right as section 9, which guards against arbitrary arrest and detention. Security of person would also be less comprehensive than section 8 rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Such an interpretation, the Court decided, would be inconsistent with the normal reading of the Charter, demonstrated in "Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker" (1984) and "Hunter v. Southam Inc.", which was meant to be generous. [Paragraphs 26-28.] For this reason, Lamer added that sections 8-14 should be seen as provided examples of principles of fundamental justice.

Another reason for discarding the "Duke" interpretation of fundamental justice was the difference in wording between the Bill of Rights and the Charter. In guaranteeing fundamental justice, the Bill of Rights references a "fair hearing." Section 7 does not mention a fair hearing and the only context for fundamental justice is the "much more fundamental rights" of life, liberty and security of person. [Para. 57-58.]

References

ee also

* List of Supreme Court of Canada cases

External links

*


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Нужно решить контрольную?

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Motor vehicle theft — Vehicle with broken window. Motor vehicle theft (sometimes referred to as grand theft auto by the media and police departments in the US) is the criminal act of stealing or attempting to steal a motor vehicle (such as an automobile, truck, bus,… …   Wikipedia

  • Motor Car Act 1903 — The Motor Car Act 1903 (3 Edw.7, c. 36) introduced registration of motor cars and licensing of drivers in the United Kingdom and increased the speed limit.[1] Contents 1 Context 2 Sections 3 Legacy …   Wikipedia

  • Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act — The Motor Vehicle Owners Right to Repair Act, sometimes also referred to as Right to Repair, is a name for several related proposed bills in the United States Congress and several state legislatures which would require automobile manufacturers to …   Wikipedia

  • Motor Vehicle Theft Act — A federal statute, commonly known as the Dyer Act, making it an offense to transport in interstate or foreign commerce a motor vehicle, knowing the same to have been stolen, or to receive, conceal, store, barter, sell, or dispose of a motor… …   Ballentine's law dictionary

  • Motor Vehicle Safety Act — (MVSA) Act which regulates the manufacture and importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to reduce risk of death, injury and damage to property and the environment …   Dictionary of automotive terms

  • Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council — The Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (OMVIC) licences and regulates motor vehicle dealers in Ontario and administers the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act on behalf of the Minister of Consumer Services. OMVIC’s mandate is to maintain a fair, safe… …   Wikipedia

  • National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act — The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act was enacted in the United States in 1966 to empower the federal government to set and administer new safety standards for motor vehicles and road traffic safety. The Act created the National… …   Wikipedia

  • American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators — The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) is a non governmental, voluntary, tax exempt, nonprofit educational association. AAMVA is a private corporation which strives to develop model programs in motor vehicle… …   Wikipedia

  • New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission — The current New Jersey license plate …   Wikipedia

  • common carrier by motor vehicle — A carrier having the status of a common carrier who uses busses, taxicabs, trucks, or other motor vehicles as the means of transportation. 13 Am J2d Car §§ 14, 17. As defined by section 303(a) of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, any person who or… …   Ballentine's law dictionary

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”