Driver Control Board (Alta.) v. Lupien, (2001) 295 A.R. 291 (QB)

• Judge: Moen, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 13, 2001
• Citations: (2001), 295 A.R. 291 (QB);2001 ABQB 511

Driver Control Bd. v. Lupien (2001), 295 A.R. 291 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. JN.074

Her Majesty the Queen in the name of the Alberta Driver Control Board (respondent) v. Lana Marie Lupien (applicant)

(Action No. 0003 22211; 2001 ABQB 511)

Indexed As: Driver Control Board (Alta.) v. Lupien

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Moen, J.

June 13, 2001.

Summary:

The police seized Lupien's car under s. 112(1) of the Motor Vehicle Administration Act when they discovered it being driven by Sharpe, whose license was suspended. Lupien's application to the Driver Control Board (Alta.) to have the seizure revoked was refused. Lupien sought judicial review and alleged that the legislation infringed ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter and s. 1(a) of the Alberta Bill of Rights.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the judicial review application on the ground that Lupien could not reasonably have known that Sharpe's license was suspended. The court upheld the validity of the legislation.

Civil Rights - Topic 686

Liberty - Principles of fundamental justice - Deprivation of - What constitutes - The police seized Lupien's car under s. 112(1) of the Motor Vehicle Administration Act when they discovered it being driven by Sharpe, whose license was suspended - Lupien argued that s. 112(1) infringed s. 7 of the Charter because it removed her ability to exercise her state-authorized right to drive - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - While the seizure of Lupien's car may have caused her inconvenience and expense, it did not undermine her personal autonomy - The seizure of her property was not followed by any punishment involving a threat to life, liberty or the security of the person - Alternatively, if s. 122(1) did infringe liberty interests, the infringement was in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice - The vehicle seizure legislative scheme was reasonably tailored to meet the objective of preventing people with suspended licences from driving - See paragraphs 47 to 57.

Civil Rights - Topic 726

Liberty - Charter of Rights and Freedoms -Denial of liberty - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 686 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1530

Property - Personal property - Deprivation of property not in accordance with principles of fundamental justice - The police seized Lupien's car under s. 112(1) of the Motor Vehicle Administration Act when they discovered it being driven by Sharpe, whose license was suspended - Lupien argued that s. 122(1) mandated the deprivation of property without a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice contrary to s. 1(a) of the Alberta Bill of Rights (the right not to be deprived of the enjoyment of property except by due process of law) - Her only opportunity for a hearing came after the deprivation of property - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that s. 112(1) did not infringe s. 1(a) of the Alberta Bill of Rights - Given the Legislature's objective of preventing suspended drivers from operating motor vehicles, the practices currently followed were sufficient - Lupien was notified of her opportunity to be heard and she was afforded a fair hearing - See paragraphs 73 to 86.

Civil Rights - Topic 1530

Property - Personal property - Deprivation of property not in accordance with principles of fundamental justice - [See Civil Rights - Topic 686 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1644

Property - Search and seizure - Seizure defined - The police seized Lupien's car under s. 112(1) of the Motor Vehicle Administration Act when they discovered it being driven by Sharpe, whose license was suspended - Lupien argued that s. 112(1) infringed s. 8 of the Charter - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - There was no "seizure" within the meaning of s. 8 - This case involved a procedure for the removal of property under a regulatory scheme, not for purposes of obtaining incriminating evidence, and compensated the persons wrongly deprived of property - Alternatively, if the seizure under s. 112(1) was a "seizure" within s. 8 of the Charter, the vehicle seizure was not unreasonable within the meaning of s. 8 - In these circumstances, the violation of Lupien's privacy interests was minimal - See paragraphs 58 to 72.

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1644 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3193

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Administrative and noncriminal proceedings - Procedure not contrary to fundamental justice - [See Civil Rights - Topic 686 and first Civil Rights - Topic 1530 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 7133

Federal or provincial legislation - Particular rights - Property rights - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 1530 and Civil Rights - Topic 1644 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8344

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Principles of fundamental justice (Charter, s. 7) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 686 ].

Motor Vehicles - Topic 3346

Regulation of vehicles and traffic - Vehicles - Seizure of - Return of seized vehicle - The police seized Lupien's car under s. 112(1) of the Motor Vehicle Administration Act when they discovered it being driven by Sharpe, whose license was suspended - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed Lupien's judicial review application - The Board erred in rejecting Lupien's position that she "could not reasonably have known" that Sharpe's license was suspended - The Board considered irrelevant considerations and failed to consider relevant information - In the circumstances, it could not be said that Lupien should have asked to see Sharpe's license - See paragraphs 27 to 43.

Motor Vehicles - Topic 3347

Regulation of vehicles and traffic - Vehicles - Seizure of - Appeals and judicial review - The police seized Lupien's car under s. 112(1) of the Motor Vehicle Administration Act when they discovered it being driven by Sharpe, whose license was suspended - Lupien's application to the Driver Control Board (Alta.) under s. 23.2(1) to have the seizure revoked was refused - The main issue was whether Lupien "could not reasonably have known" that Sharpe's licence was suspended - Lupien sought judicial review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench considered the absence of a privative clause or a right of appeal, the expertise of the administrative decision makers, the purpose of the legislation, and the nature of the issue and concluded that the standard of review was correctness - See paragraphs 11 to 26.

Cases Noticed:

Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244; 35 Admin. L.R. 153, refd to. [para. 11].

Union des employés de service, Local 298 v. Bibeault - see Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 11].

Lethbridge (City) v. Daisley (2000), 250 A.R. 365; 213 W.A.C. 365 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Alberta v. Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (1998), 223 A.R. 169; 183 W.A.C. 169; 8 Admin. L.R.(3d) 8 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 25].

Luckwell v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp., [1977] 6 W.W.R. 577 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 36].

Lesko v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, [1982] 1 W.W.R. 622; 13 Man.R.(2d) 120; 131 D.L.R.(3d) 371 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia v. Gosal et al. (1981), 34 B.C.L.R. 372; [1982] I.L.R. 1-1500 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

Cecconi v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co., [1991] I.L.R. 1-2775 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 38].

Campbell (Lawrence) Trucking Ltd. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [1993] B.C.J. No. 114 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

Peters v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance Office (1956), 2 D.L.R.(2d) 589 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Ratajczk v. Hemstra, [1985] O.J. No. 1784 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 39].

Nimmo v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. (1989), 41 C.C.L.I. 79 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Gauthier (Jim) Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac Ltd. v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp., [1990] M.J. No. 200 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 39].

A. v. Port of London Authority; Ex parte Kynoc Ltd., [1919] 1 K.B. 176 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241; 46 C.R.(3d) 193; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 34 M.V.R. 1, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Neale (1986), 71 A.R. 337; 52 C.R.(3d) 376 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied, [1987] S.C.R. xi; 75 N.R. 160; 77 A.R. 239, refd to. [para. 49].

Yehia v. Alberta (Solicitor General) (1992), 40 M.V.R.(2d) 57 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1; 9 R.F.L.(4th) 157; 26 C.R.R.(2d) 202; 122 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Werhun (1991), 70 Man.R.(2d) 63; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 440 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 56].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 76 C.R.(3d) 129; 67 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 97; 47 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Harb (T.M.) (1994), 129 N.S.R.(2d) 123; 362 A.P.R. 123; 88 C.C.C.(3d) 204 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Becker v. Alberta (1983), 45 A.R. 36; 148 D.L.R.(3d) 539 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

British Columbia (Deputy Sheriff) v. Canada - see Holmes v. Minister of National Revenue et al.

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536, refd to. [para. 61].

Holmes v. Minister of National Revenue et al. (1992), 12 B.C.A.C. 191; 23 W.A.C. 191; 90 D.L.R.(4th) 680; 66 B.C.L.R.(2d) 371 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) (2000), 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Wise, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 527; 133 N.R. 161; 51 O.A.C. 351; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 68].

Brazier v. Vancouver (City) (1997), 99 B.C.A.C. 30; 162 W.A.C. 30 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Pennington (1981), 34 A.R. 330; 63 C.C.C.(2d) 343; 17 Alta. L.R.(2d) 173 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

Moore v. Edmonton (City) (1997), 199 A.R. 346 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Curr (1972), 26 D.L.R.(3d) 603 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 76].

Canada (National Capital Commission) v. Lapointe et al. (1972), 29 D.L.R.(3d) 376 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 79].

Midgley v. Law Society of Alberta (1980), 31 A.R. 118 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Greckol (1991), 115 A.R. 124; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 430; 79 Alta. L.R.(2d) 272; 30 M.V.R.(2d) 195; [1991] 4 W.W.R. 731 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 81].

Knight v. Board of Education of Indian Head School Division No. 19, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653; 106 N.R. 17; 83 Sask.R. 81; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 289; 69 D.L.R.(4th) 489; 43 Admin. L.R. 157; 30 C.C.E.L. 237; 90 C.L.L.C. 14,010, refd to. [para. 83].

Statutes Noticed:

Motor Vehicle Administration Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. M-22, sect. 112(1) [para. 50].

Motor Vehicle Administration Act Regulations (Alta.), Section 112 Motor Vehicle Seizure and Immobilization Regulation, Reg. 395/91, sect. 6(b) [para. 19].

Section 112 Motor Vehicle Seizure and Immobilization Regulation, AR 395/91 - see Motor Vehicle Administration Act Regulations (Alta.), Section 112 Motor Vehicle Seizure and Immobilization Regulation, Reg. 395/91.

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Debates (1991), generally [para. 55].

Hansard (Alta.) - see Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Debates.

Hutchison, S.C., Morton, J.C., and Bury M.P., Search and Seizure Law in Canada (1995 Looseleaf) (Release 2), p. 2-10 [para. 63].

Counsel:

Gloria Grieco (Anderson Dawson Knisely & Stevens), for the applicant;

Sean McDonough (Department of Justice), for the respondent;

Margaret Unsworth (Department of Justice), for the respondent.

This application was heard before Moen, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on June 13, 2001.