A 100 Mile House resident finally got lucky this week. But it was in B.C. Supreme Court, rather than in the back of his van.
There鈥檚 a measure of comic relief in the judgment he won, but there are also serious musings from the judge about B.C.鈥檚 impaired-driving regime.
Police got a report of a naked man running down a remote road. A constable checked a van 鈥渟lowly pulling onto the road鈥� and stopped it. He found the gent in the driver鈥檚 seat, showing signs of impairment 鈥� and completely naked.
His story was that he had spent the evening in a bar where he met a woman named 鈥淪haron.鈥� He asked her home and she agreed. Because he had too much to drink, she agreed to drive.
鈥淥n the way they became intimate, which is why he removed his clothes. He says he got out of the vehicle to urinate and that Sharon said she needed to go to a nearby house and that she took the keys with her. He was sitting in the van expecting Sharon to return when the officer came upon him.鈥�
The police report said 鈥渂ased on Lyle鈥檚 strange behaviour of having no clothes on, smell of liquor on his breath, slurred speech, poor balance, and the result of the [breath test] that Lyle鈥檚 ability to drive is affected by alcohol. Lyle answered with a laugh: 鈥榊ou got me.鈥� 鈥�
Lyle insisted he never drove, because he didn鈥檛 have the keys. 鈥淭hey asked me where the keys were. I told them that Sharon had them.鈥�
The police gave him the breath test 鈥� after letting him put his pants on 鈥� which he failed. So he got a driving prohibition.
He appealed to the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, and a delegate heard the case over the phone.
The adjudicator rejected the appeal 鈥� as usual 鈥� preferring the police version over the driver鈥檚. The delegate found it unlikely someone would have stepped out to relieve himself, when he was reported as 鈥渞unning down the road.鈥�
鈥淚 also find it difficult to accept that 鈥楽haron鈥� would remove your keys ... I also find it puzzling ... that you stated: 鈥榊ou got me.鈥� 鈥�
The man took the case to B.C. Supreme Court and got an interesting result.
Justice Mark McEwan said the core of the case was the conflict in the stories: 鈥淚 saw the van in motion; you were the sole occupant of the van; therefore you were the driver鈥� versus 鈥淚 was in the van; Sharon took my keys; therefore I could not put the vehicle in motion; therefore I was not a driver.鈥�
The judge noted under the circumscribed scheme now in operation, the two versions lie side-by-side and can鈥檛 be reconciled. There are no face-to-face hearings, no cross-examination and no exchanges of information in court.
Credibility is based on testing all elements of a case. But the judge said B.C.鈥檚 three-year-old approach 鈥渟ubtracts most of the means by which credibility can be tested.鈥�
So with the facts in front of him, he revoked the prohibition. The delegate鈥檚 reasoning was specious on some points and illogical on others, he said. There was no evidence of keys, central to whether the van was moving.
鈥淵ou got me鈥� could have referred to being drunk, not driving.
Quite a few appeals of superintendent鈥檚 reviews make their way to court, and the judge 鈥� who is no fan of the system 鈥� said many of the cases are examples of adjudicators 鈥渁ttempting to rationalize desired results, rather than to face the fact that a paper case ... will often contain too little evidence to render one version more likely than another.鈥�
Deterring impaired driving is a given.
鈥淚f, however, the legislation supplements the imposition of penalties with the terrors of arbitrary state processes and foregone reviews, it is the duty of the courts to rigorously address those deficiencies and not to shield them.鈥�
The system, with the cursory, rough-and-ready second look given to driving prohibitions, is designed to bypass the courts. But the courts don鈥檛 look to be too happy about that.
Just So You Know: The one remaining question is: Whatever became of Sharon? We鈥檒l never know.
