Stoklosa v. Judicial Justice Lesperance

2025 BCSC 828 Stoklosa v. Judicial Justice Lesperance

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Stoklosa v. Judicial Justice Lesperance, 2025 BCSC 828 Date: 20250502 Docket: S251064 Registry: Vancouver Between: Marcin Stoklosa Petitioner And Judicial Justice Lesperance Respondent Before: The Honourable Justice Tucker On judicial review from: Provincial Court of British Columbia, January 23, 2025, Violation Ticket No. AJ28095554-1 Reasons for Judgment Counsel for Petitioner: J. Hartman No other appearances Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. April 1, 2025 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. May 2, 2025 Table of Contents I. Introduction.. 3 II. Background to the Petition.. 3 III. Analysis. 4 IV. Disposition.. 7 I. Introduction [1] On June 28, 2024, a police officer issued the petitioner a violation ticket ("Ticket") alleging a contravention of s. 144(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.

318. The petitioner was notified that the hearing date for disputing the Ticket would be December 4, 2024. On that date, the petitioner failed to appear before the Provincial Court. As a result, the Ticket was deemed undisputed by operation of s. 15(11) of the Offence Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 338 [Offence Act], and the petitioner was deemed to have pleaded guilty under s. 16(1) of the Offence Act. [2] The petitioner applied for an order striking his deemed conviction and allowing him to dispute the Ticket ("Application"). The Application was dismissed by the decision of Judicial Justice Lesperance on January 23, 2025 ("Decision"). [3] The petitioner contends the Decision is unreasonable. He petitions the Court to set it aside on judicial review. [4] The Judicial Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia were served with the petition. Neither filed a response to petition. II. Background to the Petition [5] The relevant sections of the Offence Act provide: Failure to Respond to Ticket 16 (1) If a person who has been served with a violation ticket under section 14 has not [ ] disputed the allegation or the fine portion of the ticketed amount in accordance with section 15, (a) the person is deemed to have pleaded guilty to the alleged contravention, and (b) the ticketed amount indicated on the ticket is immediately payable to the government. (2) Subject to subsection (3), if a

person who (a) is served with a violation ticket, and (b) is convicted under section 15 or deemed to have pleaded guilty under subsection (1) or under a treaty first nation law wishes to dispute the allegation or the amount of the fine, the person must apply to a justice and the justice, on being satisfied of the matters in subsection (2.1) by affidavit in the prescribed form and with or without hearing from the applicant, may make an order striking out the conviction, if any, and allowing the person to dispute the allegation or the amount of the fine portion of the ticketed amount in accordance with sections 15 to 15.4. (2.1) Before making an order under subsection (2) allowing a dispute to proceed, a justice must be satisfied that (a) through no fault of the defendant, he or she did not have an opportunity to dispute the allegation or the amount of the fine, (b) the defendant had a genuine intention to dispute the ticket before the dispute period under subsection (1) or under a treaty first nation law expired, (c) no undue prejudice will result from the extension of the dispute period, (d) the defendant has an arguable defence to the violation ticket, and (e) it is in the interests of justice to allow the dispute to proceed. [6] The Application was made under s. 16(2) of the Offence Act. It was supported by an affidavit sworn by the petitioner. His supporting affidavit included the following statements: 5. I received a Notice of Hearing in the mail with my court date of December 4, 2024, at Surrey Provincial Court. I blocked off that date to attend court for the Violation Ticket.

6. Approximately two days before the hearing date, I became sick. I was hoping I would feel better to attend the hearing date, but I was preparing myself in case I would not be able to attend due to my illness.

7. I attempted to file a letter with the court seeking an adjournment of the Violation Ticket. Through no fault of my own I was not able to attend the hearing date on December 4, 2024, as I was sick. [7] The Application was denied. The reasons given in the Decision are very brief. They state: "No evidence was supplied to confirm illness". III. Analysis [8] It is settled law that the Decision is subject to judicial review, and that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness: see e.g. Grossi v. Judicial Justice Plater (11 March 2021), Vancouver S211207 (B.C.S.C.); Shoolman-Strom v. Judicial Justice Makhdoom (2 June 2021) Vancouver S213224 (B.C.S.C.).; Eide v. Judicial Justice Adair, 2019 BCSC 207, rev'd on other grounds, 2019 BCCA 384; Donaghue v. British Columbia, 2022 BCSC 1610 at para. 20. [9] The leading authority regarding the reasonableness standard of review is Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov]. Under Vavilov, a reasonable decision is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis, and is justified in relation to the facts and law constraining the decision maker: paras. 85, 101. Reasonableness review is a deferential but robust form of review that considers whether the reasons and findings are justified, transparent, and intelligible: Vavilov at paras. 13, 30, 99. It is not sufficient for

an outcome to be reasonable. The outcome must also flow from a reasonable chain of analysis. That is, both the reasoning process followed and the outcome must be reasonable: Vavilov at paras. 85, 87. [10] The petitioner's affidavit in support of the Application included evidence directed at the factors listed in s. 16(2.1)(b) through (e). From the reasons, it appears that the Judicial Justice was satisfied in those respects. As I read them, the reasons given for the Decision are directed solely at s.16(2.1)(a): i.e., that "through no fault of the defendant", he had no "opportunity to dispute the allegation". [11] Counsel submits that the Decision is unreasonable because it presumes that a person can (and should) visit a physician for every illness and thus be in a position to produce a physician's note. She contends that such an expectation is unrealistic and unfair. She observes that many British Columbians lack a family doctor and submits that people who are not critically ill, but rather apparently suffering from a cold or flu, act reasonably by staying home, resting and/or taking medication. [12] In my view, the reasons for the Decision do not indicate that every illness-related assertion must be supported by a physician's note. Many forms of evidence might be said to confirm an assertion of an inability to dispute a ticket due to illness. An affiant might, for example,

attach dated receipts for cold and flu medication purchases. An applicant might also supply a second supporting affidavit sworn by a family member or roommate who can attest to the fact and nature of the illness experienced. In this specific case, the petitioner might have attached a copy of the letter he attests to having sent in December 2024 to advise the Court that he was sick and unable to attend. The reasons for the Decision did not state a physician's note was required as confirmation, but rather noted a complete absence of any confirmatory evidence. [13] The petitioner's affidavit in support does not state the nature or degree of his illness nor otherwise explain how his being "sick" impacted his ability to attend court. If the Judicial Justice had said that he was not satisfied, on the evidence before him, that there was an illness that resulted in an inability to attend, that would be a conclusion that the burden to establish a loss of opportunity without fault had not been met. However, it is not at all evident that that is what is the Judicial Justice meant. [14] While I do not agree with the submission that the Judicial Justice was effectively requiring a physician's note, I agree that the language regarding confirmation is problematic. It is unclear whether the Judicial Justice made a finding as to his state of satisfaction on the evidence before him under the

Application, or was taking the view that there was a stand-alone requirement for confirmation of illness. Accordingly, I am unable to say that the Decision discloses a rational chain of analysis and reasonable reasoning process leading up to the conclusion. [15] In my view, the situation here is quite like that before the Federal Court in Ghossn v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1338, where Justice Pentney wrote: [30] The problem, however, is that the Officer did not explain what is meant by "eligibility" and did not discuss how the statutory references that are cited applied to the Applicants' case. In order to justify the result to the Applicants, the Officer was required to indicate how the credibility findings relating to their place of residence were pertinent to the decision - and to show that residence was not treated as an eligibility requirement. While I accept the Respondent's argument that there is a way of reading the decision in this manner, I find that I am required to fill in too many blanks in order to do so. That is contrary to the requirements of Vavilov. [31] The error in this case was that the Officer's decision is ambiguous about what "eligibility" criterion the Applicants failed to satisfy. Was it that they failed to demonstrate they lived in Lebanon, or that they failed to satisfy the Officer that they had fled Syria because of persecution

as Christians? The decision is not clear. In this respect, this is an example of a decision that may be justifiable, but is not justified - and according to Vavilov, that makes the decision unreasonable. This was a central feature of the Officer's decision and the flaws discussed above therefore demand that the decision be quashed. [Emphasis added.] [16] The reasons in the Decision are similarly unclear as to the manner in which the Application failed to satisfy the Judicial Justice. I am satisfied that Decision must be set aside as unreasonable and the Application considered anew. IV. Disposition [17] The petition is allowed. [18] The Application is remitted to the Provincial Court for reconsideration by a different judicial justice. "Tucker J."