BC Criminal Defence Lawyer Blog

Client Charged with Assault in BC is Found Not Guilty

Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:00:00 EST

After a long and tumultuous ordeal for my client, a prominent Abbotsford man, the Provincial Court of BC found him Not Guilty of assaulting his live-in girlfriend.
The Abbotsford Times covered the story here.

Article by BC Criminal Attorney About Criminal Harassment / Stalking

Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:00:00 EST

On Decembe 23, 2011 Gordon J. Dykstra, a BC criminal defence attorney, wrote and published an in-depth article about criminal harassment, also referred to as stalking.
You can read the criminal harassment article here.
Please note that this criminal harassment / stalking article pertains to law in Canada.
Gordon J. Dykstra is a Canadian criminal defence attorney practicing criminal defence law in British Columbia.

Can I be Charged Criminally for Threatening Someone in BC?

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 08:00:00 EST

Yes. It is an offence under section 264.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada to knowingly threaten

To cause death or bodily harm to any person
To burn, destroy or damage real or personal property, or
To kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that belongs to someone else[1]

How serious is the punishment for uttering threats?

Uttering threats is a hybrid offence under the Criminal Code. This means that it can be brought as a summary conviction, or an indictable offence, depending on how the Crown chooses to proceed. If the threat was to cause death or bodily harm to a person and the crime is prosecuted as an indictment, the accused could face up to five years in jail.

More often, threats are tried as summary convictions before a lower court justice and the maximum penalty is 18 months. Anyone convicted of threatening property or animals could be charged with an indictable offence and sentenced up to two years, or an ordinary summary conviction.

What is considered a “threat”?

A threat means conveying the idea that something bad or a “menace” will befall the intended target.[2] It could include a promise to inflict pain, loss, or punishment, and it can be conditional. For example, “if you don’t do what I tell you right now, I’ll kill you” is a threat.

As the Supreme Court of Canada explained in R. v. McCraw, a threat “is a tool of intimidation which is designed to instil a sense of fear in its recipient.”[3]

The courts maintained that bodily harm includes psychological harm, and thus it is an offence to threaten an individual with rape. Courts will also look to the context of the statement. This means that you cannot tell someone you will “knock the smile off their face” as this implies a blow to the head, and thus harm.[4]

What if I didn’t mean it as a threat?

The threat must be made “knowingly.” The person uttering the words had to have been aware they were making a threat in order to have committed the offence. For example where Hiscox[5] had told his psychiatrist that he had bought a gun to kill his girlfriend, a trial judge held this was a threat under section 264.1.

However, the British Columbia Court of Appeal ordered a new trial to determine whether Hiscox actually intended the statement as a threat, or if it was simply an expression of his thought process.[6]

You do not have to intend to carry the act out for the words to qualify as a threat. It is enough that you intended to intimidate the target. If words are spontaneous blurted out in a moment of frustration, they may not constitute a threat. However if it can be established that there was an intent to intimidate, the elements of the offence will be met.[7]

What if I didn’t threaten anyone in particular?

Although the Code says cause harm to “any person”, this does not mean that the threat must be directed at a particular individual.

For example, a threat published in a newspaper that the accused was going to kill the next police officer who killed a black individual was considered to be a threat within the meaning of the Code.[8] The SCC held that threatening to cause the death of a member of a group was an offence even if it was not specified exactly which individual would be the target.

But what if the target didn’t know I said it?

There is no requirement that the intended victim be aware of the threat, nor must they feel threatened. The focus is on whether the uttered words were intended to be a threat.[9]

I thought the Charter protected my right to free speech?

Although section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of expression, including speech, courts have consistently justified the restriction of threats under section 1. It has been held that safeguarding the interests vulnerable targets is not likely have a “chilling effect” on legitimate expression and that threats are not a type of speech that is worth protecting.[10]

[1] Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46.

[2] Manning, Mewett & Sankoff: Criminal Law (Markham: LexisNexis, 2009),

at page 832. LeBlanc, [1989] S.C.J. No. 62, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1583 (S.C.C.).

[3] McCraw, [1991 S.C.J. No. 69, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 72 at 81-82 (S.C.C.).

[4] Manning, supra.

[5] Hiscox [2002] B.C.J. No. 1060, 167 B.C.A.C. 315 (B.C.C.A.).

[6] Ibid.

[7] Clemente (1993), 27 C.R. (4^th) 281, 86 C.C.C. (3d) 398 (Man. C.A.) aff’d [1994] 2 S.C.R. 758, 31 C.R. (4^th) 28, 91 C.C.C. (3d) 1.

[8] R. c. Remy-Mercier (1993), 82 C.C.C. (3d) 176 (Que. C.A.), aff’d [1990] R.J.Q. 2968 (C.Q.), leave to S.C.C. refused (1993), 84 C.C.C. (3d) vi (C.S.C).

[9] Ibid., Carons (1978), 42 C.C.C. (2d) 19 (Alta. C.A.); Neve (1993), 87 C.C.C. (3d) 190 (Alta. C.A.).

[10] Manning, at page 60. Criminal harassment: Krushel, [2000] O.J. No. 302, 142 C.C.C. (3d) 1 Ont. C.A.); uttering threats: Clemente, [1994] S.C.J. No. 50, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 758 S.C.C.

Arrested? Your Right to Counsel in British Columbia

Tue, 22 Nov 2011 08:00:00 EST

What does the right to counsel mean?

Most people are aware that they have a right to consult a lawyer if they're arrested, but what exactly does that mean? Right to counsel in Canada is based on section 10 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and means police have to follow certain rules when you are detained. Specifically, section 10 states that on arrest or detention everyone has the right "to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right."

What does "on arrest or detention" mean?

Arrest or detention means that you are in some way physically restrained by the police. It can mean taken into custody with or without your consent or when the police demand that you do something that could have legal consequence for you (such as take a breathalyser).

What does it mean to be "informed of that right?"

Police will normally read you your rights off a card. This will include telling you that you have a right to counsel without delay, that counsel is available, and the details of how to actually contact a lawyer.

What does "without delay" mean?

Police need to tell you about this right and allow you to exercise it as soon as possible after you are arrested or detained. The reason for this is so that you can make informed decisions when the police try to collect statements or evidence from you.

How do you exercise the right to counsel?

If you say you want to exercise your right to counsel, police have to give you a way to contact a lawyer right away, such as privately accessing a telephone, and can't keep questioning you until you've had that chance.
If you understand this right, but you don't say you want to contact a lawyer within a reasonable time, the police can continue questioning you.

You should also be told why you're being arrested or detained. If, after you've waived your right to counsel, the reason you're being detained changes and becomes more serious, you should be told of your right again and have another chance to contact a lawyer.

What if the lawyer I want is not available?

If the lawyer you want or first try to contact is not available, the police must give you a way to contact a different lawyer. This usually means the number for another firm or for legal aid.

What if my right to counsel wasn't respected?

If you weren't informed of your right to counsel, you weren't given a chance to actually contact a lawyer, or you were forced to waive the right, then any statement you made to police may not be allowed as evidence in court if you go to trial. You and your lawyer, however, will need to prove to the court that your right was not respected.

This is why, regardless the circumstances of your arrest in BC that you talk to a criminal defence lawyer about your arrest and charges.

Please keep in mind that this blog post about your right to counsel upon arrest in BC is fairly generalized. Each case is different and that's why it's important you speak with a BC criminal defence lawyer to learn how this right and perhaps other legal rights affect your case.

Drug Smuggling Trial Wraps Up - Reported in the Abbotsford Times Newspaper

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:00:00 EST

On November 10, 2011 Rochelle Baker of the Abbotsford Times profiled Gordon Dykstra's recent defence of a client charged with drug smuggling.

Read the full Times article titled "Trial wraps for alleged Abby coke smugglers found in berry bushes" here.

In a nutshell, Gordon's client, along with a co-accused, were charged with smuggling $1.2 million worth of cocaine from the USA to Canada.

The defence was that there was no clear inference of guilt that Dykstra's client was in possession of the drugs.

The Honourable Mr. Justice Joyce of the BC Supreme Court will issue his decision on November 24, 2011.

5 Possible Assault Charge Defences in BC

Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

Many, many people are charged with assault each year in BC. The range of the charges vary greatly from simple assault to assault causing bodily harm, to sexual assault.

Assault, generally, has many defences available. Read 5 possible assault charge defences in BC here.

Gordon Helps with BC Speeding Ticket Disputes

Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

Gordon Dykstra, an experienced BC criminal defence lawyer helps people who wish to dispute BC speeding tickets and other traffic violations in Traffic Court.

Traffic Court in BC is held in a Provincial Courthouse.

Read more about Gordon's speeding ticket dispute services here.

BC Drinking and Driving 90 Day Driving Prohibition Issues

Fri, 14 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

The relatively new drinking and driving laws set out in the Motor Vehicle Act are generating some rebuke from the B.C. Supreme Court.

The laws I'm talking about are where a police officer can issue a 90 day driving prohibition immediately along with impounding your car. The troublesome aspect is the inadequate opportunity to appeal those accusations in a forum that has all the fact-finding tools available and used in our Courts.

These laws, which are administrative prohibitions, are impacting many, many drivers in BC.

It's not the penalties that are generating more buzz, but it's the process in which they're enforced ... or should I say lack of due process.

Before the new drinking and driving laws were enacted in the Motor Vehicle Act, in order for anyone to be found guilty of drinking and driving and have any penalty levied on them, they were entitled to a trial (or could plead guilty). The new scheme provides much less opportunity to thoroughly appeal the 90 day driving prohibition and other consequent penalties (points, vehicle impoundment, etc.).

In fact, the review Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, which is a bureaucratic body functioning as a Court.

The driving prohibition appeal process in BC

When you're issued a 90 day driving prohibition under the new BC drinking and driving scheme, you have 7 days to file for a review. The review is performed by a delegate of the BC Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.

If you're not happy with the outcome of the review, you can appeal by way of petition to the B.C. Supreme Court.

We've done this for clients and it's a viable appeal process, but still it does not provide for nearly as much due-process as the former drinking and driving law regime where you could defend yourself in a trial.

In the recent B.C. Supreme Court decision Spencer v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and the Attorney General of British Columbia, 2011 BCSC 1311 [Spencer], the Honourable Mr. Justice McEwan made some comments that are not supportive of the review process.

In the Spencer case, Ms. Kristen Spencer was issued a 90 day driving prohibition on account of refusing to provide a breath sample without reasonable grounds for refusing. Ms. Spencer is a head injury victim who may be perceived as impaired at times. She explained this to the Review delegate and provided medical evidence supporting her head injury diagnosis. Still yet, the Review delegate did not accord this evidence sufficient weight to reverse the prohibition and consequent points on her licence.

Ms. Spencer's defence is that she did have reasonable grounds for refusing to provide a breath sample.

On review, the delegate stated "There is no reason for Cst. Steiger to provide inaccurate evidence on this point [i.e. that the petitioner did not refuse outright to blow; that the petitioner did not acknowledge consumption] whereas you [Ms. Spencer] have a vested interest in the outcome of this review [para. 36 Spencer, supra].

What this statement means is that the delegate of the Superintendent made a decision from a foundation of bias in favour of the police officer's evidence on the basis that Ms. Spencer has an interest in the outcome while the police officer did not.

The point of the Review process is the opportunity to more accurately and carefully assess the situation with consideration of all the evidence.

No doubt police officers make split-second decisions in the field, but when those decisions are faulty, the point of the Review process is to correct those faulty decisions.

In Ms. Spencer's case, no correction was made at the Review level.

Mr. Justice McEwan suggests that the present review process limits the opportunity for fact-finding in order for the decision-maker make an informed decision.

How is the review process limited in its fact-finding abilities?

The review is performed in writing, not as an in-person hearing. There is no opportunity for cross-examination. The evidence is not sworn.

These are 3 tenets of our judicial system in presenting evidence and cases - in the criminal and civil realm.

Less due process than when issued a speeding ticket

Mr. Justice McEwan observes that people issued a speeding ticket have more opportunity and due-process available to defend the ticket than people issued a 90 day driving prohibition, vehicle impoundment and consequent points on a licence.

At the end of the day ...

Mr. Justice McEwan ordered a rehearing with conditions on how the hearing should proceed, including before a new delegate.

My comments

The penalties resulting from an administrative driving prohibition are harsh enough to warrant more due process. In our society being deprived of the ability to drive results in harsh consequences for many people. Many jobs require a licence. I'm not saying there shouldn't be penalties, instead more due-process and the ability to fully defend such administrative charges is a welcome change to the present scheme.

As a lawyer who acts for people charged with administrative driving prohibitions, I see firsthand how the lack of process hurts people who have a defence to the charge. Not everyone who is accused of drinking and driving is guilty, yet the present process makes it exceedingly difficult to defend the accusation. All precautions should be taken in order to protect the innocent.

Police officers are forced to make tough, split-second decision in the field. Mistakes will be made. However, that is where due process comes in to play ... it's an opportunity to fix those mistakes.

Home Burglary: Gordon Dykstra Mention in the National Post

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

One September 15, 2011 the National Post newspaper published an article titled "Residents of house may be charged after alleged burglar found dead." For the article, the writer contacted Gordon J. Dykstra for a comment about home burglaries and self-defence.

The issue about self-defence when someone enters your home is one that is important to people in BC and throughout Canada. It's an issue our Courts deal with regularly. The issue boils down to when is repelling a home invader with violence going too far to amount to assault?

In Canada, the saying "your home is your castle" is still an unwritten principle; however, some home owners have been charged with assault when repelling home invaders.

Home Invasion Self-Defence - Gordon Dykstra in the Vancouver Sun

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:00:00 EST

On August 4, 2011 the Vancouver Sun published an article titled "Self-defence debate ignites with stabbing of home intruder." Gordon J. Dykstra, a criminal defence lawyer in BC, was asked to comment on this growing issue.

This article in the Vancouver Sun discusses an incident where an occupant stabbed a person who came into his home. He was charged with assault. Gordon Dykstra's comment was "You can defend your property, you can defend persons in your charge and you can defend yourself. In this case he can make an argument to all three, but he has to use proportional force."

The issue is whether stabbing is using excessive force when defending your property, yourself, and people in your charge.

Criminal Cases and Self Defence

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 08:00:00 EST

When a crime is committed but there is a justification or an excuse for committing it, this is known as a defence. A defence can also be for instance, an alibi, which challenges the charge that the accused in fact committed the crime (actus reus).

Some well-known examples of defences challenging the intention of the accused at the time he or she committed the crime (mens rea) are intoxication or mental disorder. Another well-known type of defence is self-defence.

In Canada, self-defence is codified by the Canadian Criminal Code. The Code sets out the law regarding self-defence. The law is applied to criminal cases where it is used as a defence.

The Supreme Court of Canada in setting out the Code as it applied to several criminal cases (R. v. Petel, 1994, and R. v. Malott, 1998) noted that there are three elements of self-defence for criminal cases, and in particular for criminal cases where the accused had killed another person in self-defence. The first element is that there must be the existence of an unlawful assault. Secondly, there must be a reasonable apprehension of a risk of death or grievous bodily harm. And thirdly, there must be a reasonable belief that it was not possible to preserve oneself from harm except by killed the adversary.

Although the Supreme Court laid out these elements in the context of where the victim had died, these three elements of the defence of self-defence are often cited in other cases.

Recent criminal cases have also made the suggestion that an “air of reality” must also accompany the argument for self-defence.

Reasonable force is not calculated as an exact measure, as the law makes for allowances in moments of crisis. For defending property, however, the law has separate rules in the Criminal Code.

Time to hang up the cell phones and start paying attention driving

Thu, 07 Jan 2010 08:00:00 EST

On January 1, 2010 in BC it became illegal to use a handheld device while driving. If caught, you're looking at a $167 fine. That's pretty steep, but not nearly as bad as causing a car crash.

Don't Answer That Phone, You're Driving in BC

Thu, 07 Jan 2010 08:00:00 EST

It's a traffic offence to drive while talking on a cell phone

As of January 1 this year in BC it's a mass return to listening to our radio stations in our cars.

In BC we now have to let our cell phones ring through to voice mail while driving; our government passed a law saying we can't use hand-held devices while operating a motor vehicle.

It turns out though that all of us in BC will effectively have a one-month grace period until police officers issue tickets. I suppose the one-month grace period is designed to give us 30 days to put into practice the art of driving without being on the phone.

If you have a wireless bluetooth ear-piece or some form of ear piece and can dial your phone without using the actual hand-held device, you're in luck in BC. Our law only applies to hand-held devices.

Traffic fine is $167

Don't take this law lightly. It's easy for officers to spot hand-held use and fine is an expensive $167. Surely a chat while you drive is not worth $167.

For those learner or novice BC drivers, you can't even use hands-free devices. The new law mandates that you not talk to anyone except live passengers.

So why the new law that will no doubt impede our driving lifestyle where we evade driving boredom by conversing our entire commutes? Death, destruction, widows, orphans, and injury.

On the one hand it seems odd that it took this long for governments to pass this type of law. On the other hand once the dialogue in North America about passing this type of law started not too long ago, many provincial and state governments are following suit.

So while we've been planning for a January 1, 2010 start to silent driving, or at least returning to our satellite radio players, we have until February 1, 2010 until we'll see the red and blue lights for chatting on the phone.

With mobile phones practically becoming the new personal computer, this type of law will probably get drivers to again focus on driving rather than working and being entertained.

Personal background checks doubled in BC this year

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:00:00 EST

On December 10/09 the Province Newspaper reported that personal background checks have doubled in BC this year.

More and more occupations require personal background checks that include criminal record checks. This means that having a criminal record makes it harder to get more and more jobs.

If you've been charged with a crime, don't simply plead guilty no matter how good you think the sentencing deal from the prosecutor is. Find out if you have a defence. The best outcome is a "not guilty" verdict or the charges being dropped.

Conditional Threat Can Result in Uttering Threats Charge in BC

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:00:00 EST

If you say you will harm a person “if they do or don’t do something” you can be charged and found guilty of uttering threats, an offence set out in section 264.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

This type of threat is a conditional threat.

The Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Ross (1986) 26 C.C.C. (3d) 413 held that conditional threats are threats under the uttering threats offence.

In the case R. v. Ross, the accused said to a police officer “if he [another officer] does not leave he will be shot.”

The Ontario Court of Appeal in arriving to finding that such a conditional threat is a threat, referred to both the Shorter Oxford English dictionary (Oxford) and Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed., 1979 (Black’s).

Oxford def.: a denunciation to a person of ill to befall him; esp. a declaration of hostile determination or of loss, pain, punishment, or damage to be inflicted in retribution of or conditionally upon some course; a menace.

Black’s def.: The term, "threat" means an avowed present determination or intent to injure presently or in the future. A statement may constitute a threat even though it is subject to a possible contingency in the maker's control.

In the end the Ontario Court of Appeal held that “a conditional intention is capable of being an intention” and therefore held that a conditional threat is in fact a threat contemplated under the offence uttering threats in s. 264.1 f the Criminal Code of Canada.

Random Police Breathalyzer Testing for DUI and Impaired Driving?

Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:00:00 EST

Canadian Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced in October 2009 that the Canadian government is considering enacting a law that would allow police in Canada to randomly force breathalyzer tests to motorists.

Presently, a police officer must suspect impaired driving before requiring a breathalyzer test. This means a police officer must establish the grounds to ask for a breathalyzer test - such as slurred speech, erratic driving, alcohol odour, physical impairment and so on.

Countries in Europe and Asia have such laws and according to their statistics, car accident fatalities decreased with random breathalyzer testing.

Opponents to the potential law state that random breathalyzer testing would infringe on our Charter rights, and in particular our right against unreasonable from search and seizure.

Another concern is the potential for profiling on race, economic geography, criminal records, driving records (i.e. 24 hour driving prohibitions), and perhaps other profiling.

Time will tell whether Canada follows Europe and parts of Asia with randomized breathalyzer testing.

Lawyer claims Chicago officer made false DUI arrests

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:00:00 EST

A Chicago lawyer for a man who was arrested for DUI claims the arresting police officer had no grounds for the DUI arrest. The lawyer bases the claim on the video footage of the roadside sobriety test performed by the arrested man. Read the entire lawyer DUI story by Kristen Schorsch in the Chicago Tribune newspaper here.

No right to a criminal lawyer before roadside breathalyzer

Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:00:00 EST

Section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

Everyone has the right on arrest or detention to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right.

The obvious question arises: Am I entitled to talk to a lawyer before providing a breath sample and/or performing a roadside sobriety test?

Short answer: no.

The Supreme Court of Canada addressed this matter in the case R. v. Orlanski [2005] SCJ No. 37. Canada's top court found that, yes, being pulled over and asking to provide a breath sample is being detained, and therefore one is entitled to a lawyer. However, section 1 of our Charter states that our guaranteed rights are subject to reasonable limits declared by law.

Section 254 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which sets out Canada's criminal offences, declares that upon suspicion of impaired driving a police officer can demand a breath sample and/or demand a roadside sobriety test. Section 254 is a law that limits the 'right to counsel' Charter right. What our top court decided was that demanding a breath sample and/or roadside sobriety test without an opportunity to contact a lawyer is a reasonable law.

What this means is that one is not entitled to talk to a lawyer before breathing into a roadside breathalyzer and/or performing a roadside sobriety test.

Delayed breath sample may result in "not guilty" from DUI charge

Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:00:00 EST

At what point after driving a car can a police officer get a breath sample from a breathalyzer?

Consider this not uncommon situation:

A person driving a car causes a car accident. I’ll call this person driver X. Driver X gets out of the car and remains at the scene. A police officer arrives 15 minutes after the crash. The officer starts investigating the crash, including talking briefly to driver X, then continues wrapping up the investigation. Then, 15 minutes after arriving on the scene – once the investigation is winding down, the officer returns to driver X and offers driver X a ride.

During the second conversation between the officer and driver X, the officer smells alcohol on the driver X’s breath. The officer demands a breath sample. Driver X gives a breath sample and fails. The breath sample is given 18 minutes after the officer arrives at the scene and 33 minutes after the crash.

These were the facts in a recent BC provincial court case (R. v. Redgrave, [2008] B.C.J. No. 938).

The result? Not guilty.

The reason for the ‘not guilty’ DUI decision was that the delay between the time the officer arrived at the scene and the officer demanding a breath sample was unreasonable. As such, the breath sample was not authorized by law, resulting in an unreasonable search and seizure within the meaning of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If there is a delay between the time a police officer arrives at the scene of a crash and demanding a breath sample, and if that delay is long enough – longer than it is reasonably necessary for the officer to investigate (the accident or whatever else is being investigated) – then there is a possibility that the breath sample evidence won’t be admitted in court.

Section 254 (2)(b) of the Criminal Code states “to provide forthwith a sample of breath…”
The word forthwith means immediately.

Accident victims and accident scene safety are always a priority over obtaining breath samples. However, once safety concerns are over, the police officer must investigate for impaired driving. Any delay beyond that which is necessary is unreasonable. When this happens, impaired driving evidence may not be allowed to be used against you in court.

Note: police officer delay is not to be confused with an intentional delay caused by a driver.

3 main criminal offence classifications in Canada

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:00:00 EST

If you've been charged with a crime in British Columbia, which court and how it proceeds depends on the classification of the offence. The Criminal Code of Canada sets out 3 main offence classifications which are as follows:

1. Purely summary conviction offence;
2. Purely indictable offence; and
3. Hybrid offences.

The summary conviction offences are the most minor, followed by hybrid offences, and then the most serious offences are purely indictable offences.

The majority of criminal charges in Canada (and therefore B.C.) are hybrid offences. For example, DUI and assault charges are hybrid offences.

Hybrid offences can proceed summarily (less serious) or by indictment (more serious). The prosecutor chooses the classification.

To view a detailed compare and contrast table of the 3 main offence classifications, click here.

BC jails overcrowded according to guards

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:00:00 EST

Some British Columbia jail guards report that BC jails totally overcrowded - in some cases have twice as many people for which the jail was built. In 2002 and 2003 the BC government closed facilities and laid off guards. Read more about BC jail overcrowding here.

Taser maker not happy with BC findings

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 08:00:00 EST

Taser maker is going to court in BC to challenge the BC findings on Taser safety. Specifically, Taser isn't happy about the "19 recommendations on police use". These recommendations are a result of the investigation and inquiry on the death of man in Vancouver International airport. Read more about Taser's challenge here.

102,000 reported drug offences in 2008 in Canada

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

The latest Statistics Canada report concludes there were about 102,000 reported drug offences in 2008. Half of those were the drug charge "possession of cannabis" - a 5 percent increase from 2007.

In 2007, 13 percent of all cannabis offences were for trafficking and 11 percent for production. 60 percent of cannabis production were in a residence, 32 percent in an open field, and 3 percent in a commercial location.

Read the full Statistics Canada Study: Trends in police-reported drug offences here.

More drug enforcement on the Canada-US border

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

The U.S. Border Patrol tripled the number of agents along the Canada-US border and will soon use unmanned surveillance aircraft to further monitor the border.

Two drugs Canada exports to the USA are marijuana and ecstasy laced with crystal meth. In return, cocaine is smuggled into Canada from the USA. In 2006 5.2 million ecstasy dosage units was seized while cocaine seizures tripled from 2004 to 2006. Much of the Canada-US border is not patrolled and is very remote making it difficult to stop the cross-border trafficking.

According to Rob Gordon, a criminologist with Simon Fraser University, B.C. marijuana exports is British Columbia's third largest industry behind tourism and logging.

Read more about cross-border drug smuggling between Canada and USA here.

How the breathalyzer works and possible ways to defend a DUI charge in BC

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

Police in British Columbia use breathalyzers as one of their primary tools to test for impaired driving. A blood alcohol concentration reading reading above .08 is cause for arrest for DUI / impaired driving.

There are 3 types of machines used to test for for blood alcohol concentration. They are (1) the breathalyzer, (2) the intoxilyzer, and (3) the alcosensor. These 3 devices use different chemical reactions in order to provide a blood alcohol concentration reading.

There are several ways a blood alcohol concentration reading can be inaccurate. If a criminal lawyer can show that the breathalyzer equipment wasn't maintained properly, this could be grounds for the reading not be used in court during your trial. Also, if the breathalyzer machine wasn't calibrated properly, this too could mean the reading (i.e. the .08 and above reading) will not be admitted as evidence during a trial.

These are just two examples of how a criminal lawyer can defend an impaired driving charge. Read our article "Breathalyzers and how a criminal lawyer can defend a DUI charge in BC" to learn more ways to defend a breathalyzer reading of .08 and above.

We now accept Visa and MasterCard

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

We're pleased to announce we now accept Visa and MasterCard. Note that we still do contingency fee arrangements for ICBC claims, and in some circumstances, WorkSafeBC appeals. This means we don't collect a fee until you collect.

However, if you've been charged with a crime such as impaired driving, DUI, assault, or a drug charge; injured at work and have a WorkSafeBC claim or appeal, or have a family law matter such as getting a divorce, you can now retain Dykstra & Company using Visa and MasterCard.

New Surrey Law Office

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

Dykstra & Company has expanded with a Surrey law office located at #202-15388 24th Avenue, South Surrey, BC V4A 2J2. If you have an ICBC claim, been charged with DUI, assault, or drug charges, have a WorkSafeBC appeal, or a family law matter in and around Surrey, BC, Dykstra & Company is now located in the Surrey area to serve you.

Located on 24th Avenue, just west of the King George Highway in South Surrey, our new office location expands our ability to serve clients throughout the Lower Mainland.

What must be proved for a criminal conviction in BC

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

Just because you do the act of a crime doesn't mean you'll be convicted in a BC court. The prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you also intended to commit the crime.

This means the prosecutor must prove that you (1) committed a crime, and (2) intended to commit the crime. For example, if you're in a car accident and it's your fault, but you didn't intend to cause the car crash, that isn't enough to be convicted of a crime in BC. If that was the case, many car accidents would result in criminal convictions. However, if you crash your car into someone intending to hit them, similar to intending to punch someone, then you could be charged with assault.

That said, and using the car crash example above, the prosecutor (called Crown Counsel in BC) must prove (1) that you crashed your car into a person and intended to crash your car into a person.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is more than just proving something is more than 50 percent likely. Beyond a reasonable doubt means leaving very little or no doubt in the judge's mind that you (1) did a criminal act, and (2) intended to do the criminal act.

Gordon Dykstra, a criminal lawyer in the firm Dykstra & Company, has over 25 years experience defending people charged with a crime.

Breathalyzer in every car?

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

In the USA, Congress has a pending bill which would require persons with multiple DUI / impaired convictions to pay for and install interlock systems in their vehicles. An interlock system is a breathalyzer system which will prevent a vehicle from starting if alcohol is detected.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), along with the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety have been influencers in the interlock system push in the USA.

Read more about this in the Time Magazine article "Coming Soon: a Breathalyzer in Every Car".

BC ignition interlock program for DUI / impaired convictions

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

The Office of the Superintendant of Motor Vehicles (British Columbia) now (as of February 1, 2009) requires drivers to install an ignition interlock device in all vehicles they drive if:

An alcohol-related Criminal Code or Motor Vehicle Act conviction,
Three 24-hour prohibitions within 5 years, or
Two Administrative Driving Prohibitions (ADP) within 5 years.

The more offences, the longer the device is required.
An ignition interlock device requires a driver to breathe into an into a breathalyzer type device before the vehicle will start. If there's alcohol in the breath, the vehcile won't start.

Drivers with the interlock device will need to go to an interlock installation centre every 1 - 2 months to download the information recorded. The yearly cost for an interlock device is $1,600. If a person required to install the interlock device drives another vehicle for work, they need to install a separate device in that vehicle also at an additional $1,600 per year.

British Columbia has the highest drug crime rate in Canada

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

British Columbia, as of 2007, has the highest drug crime rate in Canada. Additionally, Vancouver is the city with the most drug crimes in Canada, followed by Victoria and then Abbotsford.

Cannabis (marijuana) accounted for two-thirds of all reported drug crimes; however the use and production of synthetic drugs in Western Canada is on the rise. Read more...

Our firm newsletter is available for free download

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

Dykstra & Company, Lawyers, published their first newsletter in June 2009 coinciding with their move to #201-2692 Clearbrook Road, Abbotsford, BC. The newsletter is called the Bulletin and is available in PDF for a free download here.

Dykstra & Company hope to publish the Bulletin two times per year - its intention to keep clients up-to-date about the firm and offer informative articles. If you wish to receive a hard copy of the Bulletin, please click here and complete the contact form. In the form please specify you would like a hard copy mailed to you.

The Spring 2009 issue introduces our new website, our new office, our technology endeavours, and an informative cycling article.

Nanaimo signs encourage calling 911 to report drunk drivers

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:00:00 EST

The City of Nanaimo, British Columbia is unveiling a project in which it will post signs encouraging motorists to pull over safely and call 911 to report suspected drunk driving.

This initiative is a collaboration of the Nanaimo RCMP, Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, MADD Canada, the City of Nanaimo and BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation.

Call centres will be set up to serve these calls. The article "Call 911 to report impaired driving: BCAA" in Canadian Driver dated June 23, 2009 sets out the harrowing cost and damage of drunk driving in BC alone.

I note that the road signs to be installed will suggest to "pull over" and dial 911. There's plenty of dialogue these days about banning cell phone use while driving - 25 percent of car accidents are caused by driver distraction according to a recent BC government report. While drunk driving is dangerous to all motorists, so is cell phone use while driving according to some reports (Washington State has a ban on cell phone use while driving). I wonder if cell-phone while driving is banned in BC, whether signs will be installed encouraging calling 911 to report cell phone use while driving. I suppose with today's electronic signs, they could toggle back and forth between messages.

I wonder whether 911 already fields such calls and if so, do police follow up on them? I'll be interested to see how many calls the specially set up 911 call centres will receive reporting drunk drivers and whether sufficient policing resources will be available to go out and follow up on all the tips.

Safe roads are a significant concern to BC citizens. One way to help police, I suppose, is engage the public to get involved.

Dykstra & Company is moving June 24, 2009

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:00:00 EST

On June 24, 2009, Dykstra & Company's office will be moving to:

#201 - 2692 Clearbrook Road
Abbotsford, BC V2T 2Y8
Canada

During this transition our office will be closed from Wednesday June 24 through Wednesday July 1, 2009. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. We hope to have our computers up and running by Monday June 29 to check e-mails.

Thank you for your understanding.

Passports now required when driving to the USA

Thu, 04 Jun 2009 08:00:00 EST

As of June 1/09 you need to bring your passport, enhanced driver's licence, or nexus card when going to the USA. However, the rule will be "gently enforced". Read more about what to expect "for now" if you don't have your passport with you when driving to the USA.

Free BC Criminal Law Book

Mon, 25 May 2009 08:00:00 EST

If you've been charged with a crime, you probably need some answers. Gordon Dykstra, the founding lawyer of Dykstra & Company, wrote "Am I Going to Jail?" for people charged with a crime such as a DUI, assault or any other criminal offence in British Columbia. This book is available to you at no cost and no obligation.

Am I Going to Jail talks about the consequences of a criminal record and what you might be able to do to avoid a conviction, get a reduced charge, or a lighter sentence.

Your case may be stronger than you think - and that's the point of the book. Check it out by ordering a the Dykstra & Company homepage - it costs nothing and could help your case.

We're moving on June 25, 2009

Tue, 19 May 2009 08:00:00 EST

After 26 years on McCallum Road, Dykstra & Company is moving. Our new address as of June 25, 2009 will be:

#201 – 2692 Clearbrook Road
Abbotsford, BC V2T 2Y8.

All our other contact information (telephone, e-mail and fax) is staying the same. Just so you know, while we make our transition, our office will be closed from Wednesay June 24, 2009 through Wednesday July 1, 2009. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause.

Why are we moving?

Gordon J. Dykstra opened his law office at the McCallum Road location in 1982. In 2005 his son, Jon Dykstra, joined him. Since then, the firm has grown and expanded to include new staff. Our growth has meant that we’ve outgrown our old offices and need more space.

MRI or CAT Scan?

Tue, 19 May 2009 08:00:00 EST

MRI or CAT scan? When should either be used? Car accident injuries and many other injuries are sometimes hard to diagnose. Proper imaging procedures can help a great deal in diagnosing - but it's not always clear which imaging procedure is best. Read and watch (1.06 minute video) Paul Christo, M.D., Director, Pain Treatment Center, Johns Hopkins Hospital and Health System explain the difference between an MRI and CAT Scan on abc News Health website.

abc News Health website offers plenty of infromation, articles, and videos about many health issues - including pain treatment.

Dykstra & Company Launches Our New Website

Sat, 16 May 2009 08:00:00 EST

Obviously if you're reading this you're on our new website. We're very proud of it and hope that it will offer lots of information about us and about our legal practice areas.

We will add new articles weekly and monthly. We will alert our clients and readers to our new articles on our blog. When we find relevant and interesting news items, we'll post it for you.

Our goal is that dykstralaw.com will be a resource for our clients and for anyone who is injured in a car accident, injured at work, going through a separation or divorce, or charged with a crime.

We welcome your comments and questions - just contact us by telephone or the contact boxes on this site.

Drinking and Driving Still on BC Roads

Sat, 16 May 2009 08:00:00 EST

Early in 2009 the RCMP in the Okanagan made numerous drunk driving arrests as a result of their anti-drinking and driving campaign. Check out the PentictonWesternNews.com article Police see no shortage of impaired drivers.

Dykstra & Company's First Blog Post

Sat, 16 May 2009 08:00:00 EST

Welcome to Dykstra & Company's law blog - all about our law firm and British Columbia law in general. This blog will be about a variety of legal issues - primarily discussing our practice areas which include ICBC claims, WCB appeals, family law, and criminal law. Who knows, we may also diverge a little off the seriousness of law and talk about us and what we're doing other than legal work.

We're thrilled to launch our new all-in-one website and blog for our clients and persons looking for a lawyer in British Columbia.

You can stay up-to-date about our latest articles, announcements, and news items by subscribing to this blog - just click on the RSS button at the top right to subscribe.