Buhlers v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al., (1999) 119 B.C.A.C. 207 (CA)

• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Judge: Hinds, Prowse and Finch, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 1999 BCCA 114,1999 BCCA 0114
• Citation: (1999), 119 B.C.A.C. 207 (CA),1999 BCCA 0114,1999 BCCA 114,170 DLR (4th) 344,65 BCLR (3d) 119,132 CCC (3d) 478,23 CR (5th) 1,119 BCAC 207,[1999] BCJ No 408 (QL),41 WCB (2d) 208,60 CRR (2d) 74,170 D.L.R. (4th) 344,119 B.C.A.C. 207,[1999] B.C.J. No 408 (QL),(1999), 119 BCAC 207 (CA)
• Date: 24 February 1999
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)

Buhlers v. Supt. of Motor Vehicles (1999), 119 B.C.A.C. 207 (CA);

   194 W.A.C. 207

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.049

Michael S. Buhlers (petitioner/appellant) and David Barry (intervenor) v. The Superintendent of Motor Vehicles for the Province of British Columbia and The Attorney General of the Province of British Columbia (respondents)

(CA V03242; 1999 BCCA 0114)

Indexed As: Buhlers v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Hinds, Prowse and Finch, JJ.A.

February 24, 1999.

Summary:

A driver failed a roadside screening test. The investigating officer served him with a notice under s. 94.1(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act. The driver applied for a review of the 90 day driving prohibition referred to in the notice. His application was unsuccess­ful. A reviewing officer confirmed the 90 day prohibition under s. 94.6(1)(a) of the Act. In addition, the accused was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with having care or control of a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol content. The driver was acquitted on both charges. The driver petitioned for, inter alia, a declaration that ss. 94.1 to 94.6 of the Act were unconstitutional. Others were given leave to intervene.

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the petition. See [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. 242. The driver appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 648

Liberty - Limitations on - Drivers' licences - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the right or privilege to drive a motor vehicle was not protected by s. 7 of the Charter - The right to operate a motor vehicle on a public highway was therefore more correctly characterized as a privilege which the Crown may restrict without infringing the liberty interests protected by s. 7 of the Charter - See paragraphs 62 to 94, 109.

Civil Rights - Topic 725

Liberty - Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Liberty defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8546].

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Life, liberty and security of the person - The British Columbia Court of Appeal discussed the scope of the liberty protected by s. 7 of the Charter - The court stated that the liberty interests pro­tected by s. 7 may not necessarily be restricted to the physical liberty of the individual - In appropriate circumstances, those interests may embrace liberties that are fundamen­tally or inherently personal to the individ­ual and go to the root of a person's dignity and independence - See paragraphs 95 to 108.

Constitutional Law - Topic 2701

Determination of validity of statutes or Acts - Colourability - General - [See first Motor Vehicles - Topic 7225.3].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7082

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92) - Local works and undertakings - Highway or street traffic regulation - [See first Motor Vehicles - Topic 7225.3].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7295

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92) - Property and civil rights - Regulatory statutes - Streets and traffic - [See first Motor Vehicles - Topic 7225.3].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7515

Provincial jurisdiction (s. 92) - Matters of local or private nature - Street or highway regulation - [See first Motor Vehicles - Topic 7225.3].

Motor Vehicles - Topic 7005

Licensing and regulation of drivers - Driv­ing - Whether right or privilege - [See Civil Rights - Topic 648].

Motor Vehicles - Topic 7225.3

Licensing and regulation of drivers - Licence - Suspension of - Summary sus­pension - Testing impaired or refusing breath or blood demand - Sections 94.1-94.6 of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.) provided for a 90 day driving prohibition upon a peace officer having reasonable and probable grounds to believe the driver had an excessive blood-alcohol content or refused, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a demand for a breath or blood sample - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the purpose and effect of the legislation (to deal with the licensing of drivers and to enhance the safety of persons using public highways), was within provincial jurisdiction - The legislation did not encroach on federal jurisdiction under s. 91(27) of the Consti­tution Act, 1867 - The doctrine of colourability was not offended - See para­graphs 56 to 61.

Motor Vehicles - Topic 7225.3

Licensing and regulation of drivers - Licence - Suspension of - Summary sus­pension - Testing impaired or refusing a breath or blood demand - Sections 94.1-94.6 of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.) provided for a 90 day driving prohibition upon a peace officer having reasonable and probable grounds to believe the driver had an excessive blood-alcohol content or refused, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a demand for a breath or blood sample - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the legislation did not deprive an individual of a liberty protected by s. 7 of the Charter - See paragraph 111.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200, refd to. [para. 18].

Prince Edward Island (Provincial Secretary) v. Egan, [1941] S.C.R. 396, consd. [para. 24].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 463; 157 N.R. 97; 125 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 349 A.P.R. 81, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Bernshaw (N.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254; 176 N.R. 81; 53 B.C.A.C. 1; 87 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 29].

Reference Re Validity of Section 92(4) of the Vehicles Act, 1957 (Sask.), [1958] S.C.R. 608, consd. [para. 34].

Ross v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 5, consd. [para. 36].

R. v. Wolff (1979), 9 B.C.L.R. 390 (C.A.), consd. [para. 40].

R. v. Hurst (1984), 14 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 42].

R. v. Leclair (1990), 67 Man.R.(2d) 265 (Man. Q.B.), consd. [para. 43].

R. v. MacCormick (1988), 34 M.V.R.(3d) 266 (P.E.I.T.D.), consd. [para. 44].

Horsefield v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (Ont.) (1997), 28 M.V.R.(3d) 189 (Ont. Div. Ct.), consd. [para. 46].

R. v. Robson (1985), 19 C.C.C.(3d) 137 (B.C.C.A.), not folld. [para. 63].

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 68].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481, consd. [para. 70].

R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; 108 N.R. 171; 40 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 71].

Galaske v. O'Donnell et al., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 670; 166 N.R. 5; 43 B.C.A.C. 37; 69 W.A.C. 37, refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Pontes (P.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 44; 186 N.R. 81; 62 B.C.A.C. 241; 103 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 74].

White et al. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (N.S.) (1995), 147 N.S.R.(2d) 259; 426 A.P.R. 259; 20 M.V.R.(3d) 192 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Neale, [1986] 5 W.W.R. 577; 71 A.R. 337 (C.A.), consd. [para. 85].

Yehia v. Alberta (Solicitor General) (1992), 40 M.V.R.(2d) 57 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

Ginther v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance, [1988] 4 W.W.R. 738; 66 Sask.R. 109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

Registrar of Motor Vehicles (P.E.I.) v. Rankin (1991), 30 M.V.R.(2d) 122 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

Paganelli v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (Ont.) (1987), 6 M.V.R.(2d) 252 (Ont. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 91].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al. (1998), 107 B.C.A.C. 162; 174 W.A.C. 162; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 303 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 95].

Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 96].

Godbout v. Longueil (Ville), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844; 219 N.R. 1, consd. [para. 103].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 62].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(27) [para. 21]; sect. 92 [para. 7].

Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318, sect. 94.1, sect. 94.2, sect. 94.3, sect. 94.4, sect. 94.5, sect. 94.6 [Appendix].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (4th Ed. 1997), pp. 392 [para. 56]; 394 [para. 57].

Counsel:

Jeffrey Green and Robert Claus, for the appellant and the intervener, David Barry;

George H. Copley, Q.C., and Jean M. Walters, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 25, 26, and 27, 1998, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Hinds, Prowse and Finch, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Hinds, J.A., delivered the following judgment on February 24, 1999.