The province’s goal of improving efficiency should not come at the cost of due process
With summer in full swing and many Canadians hitting the road for time away from the office, road safety has become a hot topic for many.
Here in British Columbia, the provincial government recently released an action plan to make our roads safer. Dubbed as Road Safety Strategy 2025, the program focuses on three pillars to enhance safe driving and reduce driving-related fatalities and injuries province-wide.
The province announced this plan on the heels of other initiatives to modernize the violation ticket dispute process. British Columbians can now deal with traffic tickets via telephone, and some even online.
These new virtual hearings indicate an overarching trend in modern law: to push matters out of our courtrooms and into the hands of arbitrators rather than judges. Traffic court — it appears — is no exception. While some argue that these steps are required to help unburden our court systems, we must be cautious not to remove due process in the interests of expediency.
Although it may seem minor in the grand scheme of things, eroding the right to an in-person hearing for traffic offences could carry severe consequences for drivers. Tickets often come with severe penalties for drivers, including monetary fines and penalty points. These can affect insurance and licensing status, impacting employment, among other aspects of a person’s life.
With the importance of due process as a paramount aspect of our judicial system, the question of whether we can simultaneously preserve it while also achieving the critical goals of enhancing road safety and reducing the strain on our court systems seems overwhelming.
However, there may be an obvious answer — restorative justice initiatives.
Typically used in criminal proceedings, restorative justice is an alternative to more traditional courtroom proceedings. By viewing crime as a violation of community, it aims to rehabilitate rather than punish. Restorative justice can help restore community trust and repair broken relationships through opportunities for accountability, understanding, dialogue and healing. The practical benefit of using restorative justice has been well-documented, and its popularity appears to be on the rise.
Given its efficacy, there is little reason why the province can’t use it for traffic offenders.
Aside from the apparent benefits to participants, such as avoiding penalty points and fines, restorative justice programs could take disputes out of our courtrooms and put them into the hands of participants.
This process could help drivers gain real insight into the issues that landed them there in the first place. Rather than engaging in an adversarial process resulting in punishment, drivers participate in their rehabilitation. This process could lead to lower recidivism rates as participants take accountability, educate themselves and gain a deeper understanding of the importance of safe driving.
And the idea may not even be all that far-fetched.
Limited jurisdictions in B.C. offer the Safe Driver Dialogue Circle, an under-used educational program that uses restorative justice techniques to educate traffic offenders.
First launched as a pilot project in December of 2017, the program saw over thirty drivers participate. The drivers were people from a particular age range who received distracted driving tickets. During their sessions together, they completed cognitive tests to demonstrate how simple tasks can become complicated due to distraction and heard personal stories about the impact of distracted driving on others.
According to reports, the results from this pilot project were resoundingly positive. So positive that the Surrey RCMP decided to implement the program as well.
However, despite its apparent success, the program has never really taken off. Many police officers, lawyers and members of the public are entirely unaware of it. And there may be a good reason.
For example, the police must make all referrals to the Safe Driver Dialogue Circle.
It is reasonable to conclude that this police-based referral system has acted as one of the most significant barriers to the program’s widespread implementation. As a rule of thumb, police officers are often unwilling to explore parameters outside of their strictly defined mandates and routines. Without support from upper management, many officers may either be unaware of the program’s availability or unwilling to make the referral altogether.
But this barrier is not insurmountable.
Instead of having police refer drivers to the program, administrators may wish to consider setting practical criteria for participation and implementing an application-based system. Using similar standards to other restorative justice programs may allow administrators to select appropriate candidates, including those most likely to be rehabilitated, such as first-time offenders. Allowing drivers to engage in the process could increase the program’s reputation while leaving participants with long-lasting impressions about the importance of safe driving — far beyond what a courtroom could accomplish.
But this is not the only hurdle.
Another practical barrier to the program’s success in B.C. is that volunteers currently run it. Without a good volunteer base, the program is prone to understaffing and stalls in service.
Service administrators may instead consider appealing to the provincial government for funding. This funding could help them hire a handful of staff members, sufficient to provide continuity and oversight. And the province would be well-considered to take them up on their offer. After all, the program could pay for itself by unburdening courtrooms and encouraging drivers to conduct themselves more responsibly on the roads, which should decrease accidents.
Improving our roads and courtrooms through technology through a lofty three-pillared approach to safety sounds good. But there is a more straightforward, practical and palatable answer already sitting right in front of us all along — restorative justice.
