Is it improper to assume that an officer complied with legislative requirements simply because they exist?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Kirby v British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2019 BCSC 1625 (CanLII):
With regard to the rhetorical question posed by the Superintendent, assuming an officer complied with legislative requirements simply because they exist is an impermissible presumption of regularity: Pawloski v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2016 BCSC 2236 at paras. 34-37, rev’d on other grounds 2017 BCCA 406.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Does the tort of misfeasance in public office apply to an individual officer or officer? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a court review a decision by a police officer under section 90.3 of the Criminal Code when the officer applied the wrong test? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can the BC government adopt the same or similar legislation or legislation in respect of a future election or referendum? (British Columbia, Canada)
What are the procedural fairness requirements for a decision to suspend an officer with pay pending an administrative investigation? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does the "crumbling skull" rule require that a pre-existing condition was symptomatic at the time of the tortious act? (British Columbia, Canada)
How have courts interpreted the concept that a driver is entitled to assume traffic will comply with the law and stop? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a plaintiff be considered a travelling employee for workers’ compensation purposes when he drives from his home to his employer’s office in Richmond, after driving to the employer's office? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a defendant required to acknowledge that they have defamed a person simply because they have made an error in description? (British Columbia, Canada)
What evidence is required to prove the purpose of the legislation is to infringe aboriginal rights? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for interpreting legislation in the context of municipal legislation in Whistler? (British Columbia, Canada)
