Motor Vehicle Law at the Roadside (13:III) - Revision history

LSLAP at 19:25, 13 October 2025

2025-10-13T19:25:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:25, 13 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~August 14, 2024~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= 30 July 2025}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}
	Most motor vehicle law issues begin at the roadside, in an interaction with a police officer, or other peace officers. This section discusses common issues encountered at the roadside and provides an outline of your rights when you are stopped by a peace officer.		Most motor vehicle law issues begin at the roadside, in an interaction with a police officer, or other peace officers. This section discusses common issues encountered at the roadside and provides an outline of your rights when you are stopped by a peace officer.

LSLAP at 23:46, 28 September 2025

2025-09-28T23:46:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:46, 28 September 2025
Line 38:		Line 38:
	If you are detained, you have the right to contact a lawyer before you make any statement. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc33/2009scc33.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20suberu&autocompletePos=1 R v Suberu]'', 2009 SCC 33, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the right to speak to a lawyer arises as soon as a person is detained, even though they have not been formally arrested yet. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc32/2009scc32.html?resultIndex=1 R v Grant]'', 2009 SCC 32, the court found that “detention” begins as soon as there is physical or psychological restraint imposed by the police that prevents a person from leaving.		If you are detained, you have the right to contact a lawyer before you make any statement. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc33/2009scc33.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20suberu&autocompletePos=1 R v Suberu]'', 2009 SCC 33, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the right to speak to a lawyer arises as soon as a person is detained, even though they have not been formally arrested yet. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc32/2009scc32.html?resultIndex=1 R v Grant]'', 2009 SCC 32, the court found that “detention” begins as soon as there is physical or psychological restraint imposed by the police that prevents a person from leaving.

	In summary, your right to silence continues to operate when you are stopped in a vehicle by the police. If the response to you (politely) asking whether you are free to go is anything other than an unqualified “yes”, you should assume you are being detained, and may wish to exercise your right to remain silent so as to avoid making statements that may incriminate you. Any admissions that you make at the roadside can be, and most likely will be, used against you in court. Remember that police officers are collecting evidence at the roadside. If you are arrested, you should ask to speak to a lawyer as soon as possible, and avoid making any statements or admissions until you have had an opportunity to speak to a lawyer. The exception is that you must state your name and address, as well as the name and address of the vehicle’s owner per s 73 of the MVA. If you are also asked to provide a breath sample, you must do so even if you have not had a chance to consult a lawyer.		In summary, your right to silence continues to operate when you are stopped in a vehicle by the police. If the response to you (politely) asking whether you are free to go is anything other than an unqualified “yes”, you should assume you are being detained, and may wish to exercise your right to remain silent so as to avoid making statements that may incriminate you. Any admissions that you make at the roadside can be, and most likely will be, used against you in court. Remember that police officers are collecting evidence at the roadside. If you are arrested, you should ask to speak to a lawyer as soon as possible, and avoid making any statements or admissions until you have had an opportunity to speak to a lawyer. The exception is that you must state your name and address, as well as the name and address of the vehicle’s owner per s 73 of the ''MVA''. If you are also asked to provide a breath sample, you must do so even if you have not had a chance to consult a lawyer.

	==D. Vehicle Standards==		==D. Vehicle Standards==

LSLAP: /* 2. Seat Belt Assembly */

2025-09-28T23:45:50Z

2. Seat Belt Assembly

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:45, 28 September 2025
Line 66:		Line 66:
	:c) The person is under the age of 16		:c) The person is under the age of 16

	Courts have upheld the rules enforcing mandatory seat belt use as they are held not to be an infringement of an individual’s ''Charter'' rights. The provisions are integral to the broad legislative scheme promoting highway safety and minimizing the overall human and economic cost of accidents. The alleged infringement of a person’s right to free choice is so insignificant that it cannot be considered a measurable breach of ''Charter'' rights: [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1987/1987canlii2453/1987canlii2453.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20kennedy%2C%20%5B1987%5D%20&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Kennedy'', [1987<nowiki>]</nowiki> BCJ No 2028, 18 BCLR (2d) 321 (CA)].		Courts have upheld the rules enforcing mandatory seat belt use as they are held not to be an infringement of an individual’s ''Charter'' rights. The provisions are integral to the broad legislative scheme promoting highway safety and minimizing the overall human and economic cost of accidents. The alleged infringement of a person’s right to free choice is so insignificant that it cannot be considered a measurable breach of ''Charter'' rights: ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1987/1987canlii2453/1987canlii2453.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20kennedy%2C%20%5B1987%5D%20&autocompletePos=1 R v Kennedy]'', [1987<nowiki>]</nowiki> BCJ No 2028, 18 BCLR (2d) 321 (CA).


	{{LSLAP Manual Navbox\|type=chapters8-14}}		{{LSLAP Manual Navbox\|type=chapters8-14}}

LSLAP: /* C. The Right to Silence */

2025-09-28T23:45:10Z

C. The Right to Silence

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:45, 28 September 2025
Line 36:		Line 36:
	With the exception of providing license, registration, and insurance, providing a sample of breath, and providing a statement at the scene of a collision in which you were involved, you are not obligated to make a statement to the police, or to answer their questions.		With the exception of providing license, registration, and insurance, providing a sample of breath, and providing a statement at the scene of a collision in which you were involved, you are not obligated to make a statement to the police, or to answer their questions.

	If you are detained, you have the right to contact a lawyer before you make any statement. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc33/2009scc33.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20suberu&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Suberu'', 2009 SCC 33], the Supreme Court of Canada found that the right to speak to a lawyer arises as soon as a person is detained, even though they have not been formally arrested yet. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc32/2009scc32.html?resultIndex=1 ''R v Grant'', 2009 SCC 32], the court found that “detention” begins as soon as there is physical or psychological restraint imposed by the police that prevents a person from leaving.		If you are detained, you have the right to contact a lawyer before you make any statement. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc33/2009scc33.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20suberu&autocompletePos=1 R v Suberu]'', 2009 SCC 33, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the right to speak to a lawyer arises as soon as a person is detained, even though they have not been formally arrested yet. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc32/2009scc32.html?resultIndex=1 R v Grant]'', 2009 SCC 32, the court found that “detention” begins as soon as there is physical or psychological restraint imposed by the police that prevents a person from leaving.

	In summary, your right to silence continues to operate when you are stopped in a vehicle by the police. If the response to you (politely) asking whether you are free to go is anything other than an unqualified “yes”, you should assume you are being detained, and may wish to exercise your right to remain silent so as to avoid making statements that may incriminate you. Any admissions that you make at the roadside can be, and most likely will be, used against you in court. Remember that police officers are collecting evidence at the roadside. If you are arrested, you should ask to speak to a lawyer as soon as possible, and avoid making any statements or admissions until you have had an opportunity to speak to a lawyer. The exception is that you must state your name and address, as well as the name and address of the vehicle’s owner per s 73 of the MVA. If you are also asked to provide a breath sample, you must do so even if you have not had a chance to consult a lawyer.		In summary, your right to silence continues to operate when you are stopped in a vehicle by the police. If the response to you (politely) asking whether you are free to go is anything other than an unqualified “yes”, you should assume you are being detained, and may wish to exercise your right to remain silent so as to avoid making statements that may incriminate you. Any admissions that you make at the roadside can be, and most likely will be, used against you in court. Remember that police officers are collecting evidence at the roadside. If you are arrested, you should ask to speak to a lawyer as soon as possible, and avoid making any statements or admissions until you have had an opportunity to speak to a lawyer. The exception is that you must state your name and address, as well as the name and address of the vehicle’s owner per s 73 of the MVA. If you are also asked to provide a breath sample, you must do so even if you have not had a chance to consult a lawyer.

LSLAP: /* A. Powers of Peace Officers */

2025-09-28T23:44:21Z

A. Powers of Peace Officers

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:44, 28 September 2025
Line 6:		Line 6:
	Police officers have the power to stop drivers to check for the fitness of the motor vehicle, possession of a valid driver’s license, proper insurance, and sobriety of the driver. Police officers do not need a warrant, or even reasonable and probable grounds to perform such stops. '''The fact that you are driving on a public highway is enough to justify a vehicle stop.'''		Police officers have the power to stop drivers to check for the fitness of the motor vehicle, possession of a valid driver’s license, proper insurance, and sobriety of the driver. Police officers do not need a warrant, or even reasonable and probable grounds to perform such stops. '''The fact that you are driving on a public highway is enough to justify a vehicle stop.'''

	According to the Supreme Court of Canada in [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1990/1990canlii108/1990canlii108.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20ladouc&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Ladouceur'', [1990<nowiki>]</nowiki> 1 SCR 1257, 56 CCC (3d) 22], random checks by the police for motor vehicle fitness, possession of valid driver’s license and proper insurance, as well as sobriety of driver constitute arbitrary detention contrary to s 9 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK)'', 1982, c 11 [''Charter'']. However, these checks are considered reasonable limits under s 1 of the Charter so long as they are “truly random routine checks”: [https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2004/2004canlii18216/2004canlii18216.html?resultIndex=1 ''R v McGlashen'', [2004<nowiki>]</nowiki> OJ No 468, 115 CRR (2d) 359]. The ''Ladouceur'' decision was affirmed in [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2005/2005scc37/2005scc37.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20orbanski&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Orbanski'', 2005 SCC 37, [2005<nowiki>]</nowiki> 2 SCR 3].		According to the Supreme Court of Canada in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1990/1990canlii108/1990canlii108.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20ladouc&autocompletePos=1 R v Ladouceur]'', [1990<nowiki>]</nowiki> 1 SCR 1257, 56 CCC (3d) 22, random checks by the police for motor vehicle fitness, possession of valid driver’s license and proper insurance, as well as sobriety of driver constitute arbitrary detention contrary to s 9 of the ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK)'', 1982, c 11 [''Charter'']. However, these checks are considered reasonable limits under s 1 of the Charter so long as they are “truly random routine checks”: ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2004/2004canlii18216/2004canlii18216.html?resultIndex=1 R v McGlashen]'', [2004<nowiki>]</nowiki> OJ No 468, 115 CRR (2d) 359. The ''Ladouceur'' decision was affirmed in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2005/2005scc37/2005scc37.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20orbanski&autocompletePos=1 R v Orbanski]'', 2005 SCC 37, [2005<nowiki>]</nowiki> 2 SCR 3.

	Pursuant to ''Motor Vehicle Act s 79'' a peace officer may arrest without warrant any person:		Pursuant to ''Motor Vehicle Act s 79'' a peace officer may arrest without warrant any person:

LSLAP: /* 2. Seat Belt Assembly */

2025-09-22T06:53:50Z

2. Seat Belt Assembly

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:53, 22 September 2025
Line 60:		Line 60:
	Section 220(4) requires that when the motor vehicle is operated, these assemblies must be properly fastened except as per s 220(5):		Section 220(4) requires that when the motor vehicle is operated, these assemblies must be properly fastened except as per s 220(5):

	:a) When a person is driving in reverse, or		:a) When a person is driving in reverse, or; (Repealed)

	:b) ~~(Repealed)~~		:b) In the case of a person engaged in work which requires frequent alighting and in which the maximum vehicle speed is 40 km per hour, or;

	:c~~) In the case of a person engaged in work which requires frequent alighting and in which the maximum vehicle speed is 40 km per hour, or;~~		:c) The person is under the age of 16

	:d) The person is under the age of 16

	Courts have upheld the rules enforcing mandatory seat belt use as they are held not to be an infringement of an individual’s ''Charter'' rights. The provisions are integral to the broad legislative scheme promoting highway safety and minimizing the overall human and economic cost of accidents. The alleged infringement of a person’s right to free choice is so insignificant that it cannot be considered a measurable breach of ''Charter'' rights: [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1987/1987canlii2453/1987canlii2453.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20kennedy%2C%20%5B1987%5D%20&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Kennedy'', [1987<nowiki>]</nowiki> BCJ No 2028, 18 BCLR (2d) 321 (CA)].		Courts have upheld the rules enforcing mandatory seat belt use as they are held not to be an infringement of an individual’s ''Charter'' rights. The provisions are integral to the broad legislative scheme promoting highway safety and minimizing the overall human and economic cost of accidents. The alleged infringement of a person’s right to free choice is so insignificant that it cannot be considered a measurable breach of ''Charter'' rights: [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1987/1987canlii2453/1987canlii2453.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20kennedy%2C%20%5B1987%5D%20&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Kennedy'', [1987<nowiki>]</nowiki> BCJ No 2028, 18 BCLR (2d) 321 (CA)].

LSLAP: /* C. The Right to Silence */

2025-09-22T06:52:52Z

C. The Right to Silence

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:52, 22 September 2025
Line 38:		Line 38:
	If you are detained, you have the right to contact a lawyer before you make any statement. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc33/2009scc33.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20suberu&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Suberu'', 2009 SCC 33], the Supreme Court of Canada found that the right to speak to a lawyer arises as soon as a person is detained, even though they have not been formally arrested yet. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc32/2009scc32.html?resultIndex=1 ''R v Grant'', 2009 SCC 32], the court found that “detention” begins as soon as there is physical or psychological restraint imposed by the police that prevents a person from leaving.		If you are detained, you have the right to contact a lawyer before you make any statement. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc33/2009scc33.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20suberu&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Suberu'', 2009 SCC 33], the Supreme Court of Canada found that the right to speak to a lawyer arises as soon as a person is detained, even though they have not been formally arrested yet. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2009/2009scc32/2009scc32.html?resultIndex=1 ''R v Grant'', 2009 SCC 32], the court found that “detention” begins as soon as there is physical or psychological restraint imposed by the police that prevents a person from leaving.

	In summary, your right to silence continues to operate when you are stopped in a vehicle by the police. If the response to you (politely) asking whether you are free to go is anything other than an unqualified “yes”, you should assume you are being detained, and may wish to exercise your right to remain silent so as to avoid making statements that may incriminate you. ~~'''~~Any admissions that you make at the roadside can be, and most likely will be, used against you in court.~~'''~~ Remember that police officers are collecting evidence at the roadside. If you are arrested, you should ask to speak to a lawyer as soon as possible, and avoid making any statements or admissions until you have had an opportunity to speak to a lawyer.		In summary, your right to silence continues to operate when you are stopped in a vehicle by the police. If the response to you (politely) asking whether you are free to go is anything other than an unqualified “yes”, you should assume you are being detained, and may wish to exercise your right to remain silent so as to avoid making statements that may incriminate you. Any admissions that you make at the roadside can be, and most likely will be, used against you in court. Remember that police officers are collecting evidence at the roadside. If you are arrested, you should ask to speak to a lawyer as soon as possible, and avoid making any statements or admissions until you have had an opportunity to speak to a lawyer. The exception is that you must state your name and address, as well as the name and address of the vehicle’s owner per s 73 of the MVA. If you are also asked to provide a breath sample, you must do so even if you have not had a chance to consult a lawyer.

	==D. Vehicle Standards==		==D. Vehicle Standards==

LSLAP at 21:01, 21 August 2024

2024-08-21T21:01:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:01, 21 August 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~July 1~~, ~~2023~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= August 14, 2024}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}
	Most motor vehicle law issues begin at the roadside, in an interaction with a police officer, or other peace officers. This section discusses common issues encountered at the roadside and provides an outline of your rights when you are stopped by a peace officer.		Most motor vehicle law issues begin at the roadside, in an interaction with a police officer, or other peace officers. This section discusses common issues encountered at the roadside and provides an outline of your rights when you are stopped by a peace officer.

LSLAP at 23:01, 5 August 2024

2024-08-05T23:01:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:01, 5 August 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= July 1, 2023}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= July 1, 2023}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}
	Most motor vehicle law issues begin at the roadside, in an interaction with a police officer, or other peace officers. This section discusses common issues encountered at the roadside, and provides an outline of your rights when you are stopped by a peace officer.		Most motor vehicle law issues begin at the roadside, in an interaction with a police officer, or other peace officers. This section discusses common issues encountered at the roadside and provides an outline of your rights when you are stopped by a peace officer.

	==A. Powers of Peace Officers==		==A. Powers of Peace Officers==

LSLAP at 18:23, 8 August 2023

2023-08-08T18:23:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:23, 8 August 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= July 4, ~~2022~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= July 1, 2023}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}
	Most motor vehicle law issues begin at the roadside, in an interaction with a police officer, or other peace officers. This section discusses common issues encountered at the roadside, and provides an outline of your rights when you are stopped by a peace officer.		Most motor vehicle law issues begin at the roadside, in an interaction with a police officer, or other peace officers. This section discusses common issues encountered at the roadside, and provides an outline of your rights when you are stopped by a peace officer.
Line 10:		Line 10:
	Pursuant to ''Motor Vehicle Act s 79'' a peace officer may arrest without warrant any person:		Pursuant to ''Motor Vehicle Act s 79'' a peace officer may arrest without warrant any person:

	:a) ~~whom~~ the officer finds driving a motor vehicle, and who the officer or constable has reasonable and probable grounds to believe was driving in contravention of ''Motor Vehicle Act'' ss 95 or 102 (driving while prohibited) (s 79(a)); or		:a) Whom the officer finds driving a motor vehicle, and who the officer or constable has reasonable and probable grounds to believe was driving in contravention of ''Motor Vehicle Act'' ss 95 or 102 (driving while prohibited) (s 79(a)); or

	:b) ~~whom~~ the officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe is not insured or who is driving without a valid and subsisting motor vehicle liability insurance card or financial responsibility card (s 79(b)); or		:b) Whom the officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe is not insured or who is driving without a valid and subsisting motor vehicle liability insurance card or financial responsibility card (s 79(b)); or

	:c) ~~whom~~ the officer has reasonable and probable cause to believe has contravened ''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 68 (leaving the scene of an accident) (s 79(c))		:c) Whom the officer has reasonable and probable cause to believe has contravened ''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 68 (leaving the scene of an accident) (s 79(c))

	and may detain the person until they can be brought before a justice.		and may detain the person until they can be brought before a justice.
Line 48:		Line 48:
	Under ''Motor Vehicle Regulations'' s 25.30, where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a vehicle is unsafe for use on a highway, regardless of whether or not the vehicle actually meets the standards prescribed under the ''Motor Vehicle Act'', the officer may:		Under ''Motor Vehicle Regulations'' s 25.30, where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a vehicle is unsafe for use on a highway, regardless of whether or not the vehicle actually meets the standards prescribed under the ''Motor Vehicle Act'', the officer may:

	:a) ~~order~~ the vehicle removed from the highway until repairs as ordered by the officer are completed or the peace officer revokes the order; and/or		:a) Order the vehicle removed from the highway until repairs as ordered by the officer are completed or the peace officer revokes the order; and/or

	:b) ~~order~~ the surrender of the vehicle license and/or number plates.		:b) Order the surrender of the vehicle license and/or number plates.

	Seat belt issues, discussed below, are the most common source of equipment standards issues, but for a complete list of required standards, please consult the ''Motor Vehicle Act'' and ''Regulations''.		Seat belt issues, discussed below, are the most common source of equipment standards issues, but for a complete list of required standards, please consult the ''Motor Vehicle Act'' and ''Regulations''.
Line 60:		Line 60:
	Section 220(4) requires that when the motor vehicle is operated, these assemblies must be properly fastened except as per s 220(5):		Section 220(4) requires that when the motor vehicle is operated, these assemblies must be properly fastened except as per s 220(5):

	:a) ~~when~~ a person is driving in reverse, or		:a) When a person is driving in reverse, or

	:b) (Repealed)		:b) (Repealed)

	:c) in the case of a person engaged in work which requires frequent alighting and in which the maximum vehicle speed is 40 km per hour, or;		:c) In the case of a person engaged in work which requires frequent alighting and in which the maximum vehicle speed is 40 km per hour, or;

	:d) ~~the~~ person is under the age of 16		:d) The person is under the age of 16

	Courts have upheld the rules enforcing mandatory seat belt use as they are held not to be an infringement of an individual’s ''Charter'' rights. The provisions are integral to the broad legislative scheme promoting highway safety and minimizing the overall human and economic cost of accidents. The alleged infringement of a person’s right to free choice is so insignificant that it cannot be considered a measurable breach of ''Charter'' rights: [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1987/1987canlii2453/1987canlii2453.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20kennedy%2C%20%5B1987%5D%20&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Kennedy'', [1987<nowiki>]</nowiki> BCJ No 2028, 18 BCLR (2d) 321 (CA)].		Courts have upheld the rules enforcing mandatory seat belt use as they are held not to be an infringement of an individual’s ''Charter'' rights. The provisions are integral to the broad legislative scheme promoting highway safety and minimizing the overall human and economic cost of accidents. The alleged infringement of a person’s right to free choice is so insignificant that it cannot be considered a measurable breach of ''Charter'' rights: [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1987/1987canlii2453/1987canlii2453.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20kennedy%2C%20%5B1987%5D%20&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Kennedy'', [1987<nowiki>]</nowiki> BCJ No 2028, 18 BCLR (2d) 321 (CA)].