Having come to the conclusion that the petition should be allowed and the review remitted for a rehearing, the chambers judge addressed: (1) the failure of the adjudicator to consider cases cited but not provided by the respondent’s counsel; and (2) the delay occasioned in the resolution of the review application. On the first issue, he concluded that it was not acceptable for the adjudicator to ignore authorities referred to by the respondent’s counsel in respect of which neutral citations had been provided. On the second issue, which the chambers judge recognized was not raised in the petition, he concluded that a delay of 18 months is unacceptable in the administration of a scheme designed to provide an expeditious process for the resolution of driving prohibition reviews: see Nagra v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2010 BCCA 154 at para. 26. In the absence of prejudice to the respondent, he declined, however, to make a costs award as a consequence of the delay.
"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.