The British Columbia Court of Appeal considered the interpretation of the Motor Vehicle Act Regulations (“Regulations”) that impose limitations on a motorcyclist with a learners permit. The issue was whether the behaviour of the learner’s supervisor that is beyond the control and reasonable expectation of the learner and which is of short duration, places the learner in violation of the Regulations.
The plaintiff was injured while on his motorcycle. He had a learner’s license which required him to be under the “direct supervision” of a licensed motorcyclist. Learners are not permitted to carry a passenger so the licensed motorcyclist must follow in a car or on a motorcycle. Under the Regulations, “direct supervision” means that “the person supervising can, at all times, see the other person while the other person is operating the motorcycle.” The plaintiff and licensed motorcyclist agreed to a route before setting off. The supervisor followed the learner in a car. While driving, they became separated. The supervisor lost sight of the learner and assumed that he must have turned. The supervisor veered off the agreed upon route moments before the accident occurred.
The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (“ICBC”) denied the plaintiff benefits under Part 7 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulations. It reasoned that the plaintiff was not authorized to operate his motorcycle at the moment of the accident because he was not under direct supervision as required by the Regulations. The plaintiff sued to obtain the benefits or alternatively for breach of contract. There was no dispute over the facts, and the case proceeded as a summary trial. The judge declared that the plaintiff was entitled to Part 7 benefits. The loss of contact was momentary and involuntary and strict liability could not have been contemplated by the drafters of the legislation.
The ICBC appealed. The court considered the relevant sections of the Regulations. It noted that s. 30.06(4) is directed entirely at the behaviour of the learner. The court reasoned that in the context, the subsections of 30.06 require the learner to take all reasonable steps to ensure that he or she is being supervised in compliance with the Regulations. Section 30.06(5), which articulates the direct supervision requirement, must be read as focusing on the behaviour for which the learner can control and be responsible. The court refused the ICBC’s interpretation which would “penalize a person regulated by the Act for unexpected actions by a third party”.
Under the proper interpretation of the Regulations, the learner’s reasonable steps involve arranging for supervision and refraining from driving when it is not reasonable for a learner to believe that he was in sight of the supervisor. In the circumstances, the court upheld the trial judge’s conclusion that the loss of contact was momentary and involuntary and the learner could not be faulted. The appeal was dismissed.
March 16, 2011
Link to Decision
Julia Wilkes
*
No comments:
Post a Comment