This bill amends the Motor Vehicle Act to give peace officers the authority to serve an immediate administrative prohibition when they have reasonable grounds to believe someone engaged in specified forms of reckless driving. The prohibition takes effect on service, may require surrender of a driver’s licence, lasts 30 days unless revoked, and is expressly non‑appealable.
The Act also requires officers to provide notices and optional written reports to the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, authorizes the superintendent to consider further prohibitions under the Act, and creates a criminal offence with set fines and possible imprisonment for anyone who drives while knowingly subject to a prohibition. The change shifts initial enforcement from criminal charges to an administrative removal tool while preserving criminal penalties for non‑compliance.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill defines a set of behaviours labeled "reckless driving" (including wheel‑lift stunts, high‑speed thresholds, close‑proximity blocking, and other conduct) and lets a peace officer immediately serve a 30‑day driving prohibition and demand licence surrender. Officers must send the notice to the superintendent within prescribed timelines, and the superintendent may then exercise longer prohibitions under existing section 93.
Who It Affects
Drivers who perform stunts, speed excessively, or engage in blocking or other aggressive maneuvers; frontline peace officers who will issue and report prohibitions; the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles who must process reports and decide on further administrative action; and courts and prosecutors who will handle offences for driving while prohibited.
Why It Matters
It creates a permanent administrative fast‑track to remove dangerous drivers from roads without waiting for criminal proceedings, reallocating the early enforcement decision to police and the superintendent and potentially reducing reliance on immediate criminal charges while introducing new procedural and evidentiary questions for enforcement agencies and defence counsel.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds new sections to the Motor Vehicle Act that start by saying what counts as "reckless driving." That list mixes clearly identifiable stunts (wheel lifts, performing circles without control), several speed‑based cutoffs (differing thresholds depending on posted speed limits and an absolute 150 km/h floor), and a set of proximity and blocking behaviours that capture aggressive driving near other vehicles, pedestrians, or fixed objects. The regulations clause lets the government expand or clarify that list and spell out what evidence officers should rely on.
When a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe someone committed one of those behaviours on a highway or industrial road, the officer may hand the person a written notice that immediately prohibits them from driving in British Columbia for 30 days and can require surrender of any driver’s licence. The person cannot appeal that immediate administrative prohibition.
The superintendent must return a surrendered licence after the prohibition expires unless another suspension or prohibition applies.To make the administrative step work as a check on errors, the bill requires the officer to provide a copy of the notice to the superintendent within a prescribed time and allows — but does not require — the officer to file a written report explaining the factual basis for reasonable grounds. If the officer fails to send the notice copy within the prescribed period, the initial prohibition is void as against the driver.After receiving an officer’s written report, the superintendent must consider whether to use powers under section 93 (existing law that allows administrative prohibitions).
If the superintendent issues a further prohibition under section 93, the 30‑day period already served is credited against that longer administrative prohibition. Finally, the Act creates a separate criminal offence for knowingly driving while subject to a prohibition, sets minimum and maximum fines and jail ranges (including mandatory minimum detention on repeat conviction), and allows a superintendent’s certificate to be admitted as evidence that the prohibition was in effect and served on the driver.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines "reckless driving" with specific conduct categories, including wheel lifts, spinning/circling without control, blocking/pinning other road users, being in the trunk, not seated in the driver’s seat, and three speed‑based thresholds (40 km/h over limit when limit <80 km/h; 50 km/h over when limit ≥80 km/h; and 150 km/h or more).
A peace officer may immediately serve a written notice that prohibits the person from driving in BC and may require immediate surrender of the driver’s licence; that administrative prohibition takes effect on service, lasts 30 days, and is not appealable.
If the peace officer does not provide a copy of the notice to the superintendent within the prescribed time, the prohibition is void against the driver; officers may also submit an optional written report describing the factual basis for reasonable grounds.
On receiving an officer’s written report the superintendent must consider using powers under section 93 and may request more information; any 30‑day prohibition already served is credited against a subsequent superintendent order.
Driving while knowing you are under a section 90.5 prohibition is a criminal offence: first conviction carries a $500–$2,000 fine or up to 6 months’ imprisonment (or both); any subsequent conviction carries a $500–$2,000 fine plus 14 days–1 year imprisonment; a superintendent’s certificate is admissible proof of notice and effect.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Immediate administrative prohibition for defined "reckless driving"
This section sets out the operative definition of reckless driving and gives a peace officer the power to serve an on‑the‑spot notice that immediately bars the recipient from driving in BC and allows the officer to demand the person’s licence. The prohibition is administrative (not criminal), effective on service, lasts 30 days unless revoked, and the statute expressly bars appeals. Practically, this moves the first line of enforcement from charging to immediate administrative removal and places a premium on how officers form and document "reasonable grounds."
Reporting requirements to the Superintendent
Officers who serve a notice must provide a copy of it to the superintendent within prescribed timelines and formats; they may also file a written report giving the factual basis for their reasonable grounds. A late or missing copy voids the prohibition against the driver, which creates a strict procedural check but also a potential operational trap if timelines or forms are unclear. The Lieutenant Governor in Council can make regulations specifying those timelines and the required forms.
Superintendent consideration and coordination with section 93 powers
Once the superintendent receives an officer’s written report, the superintendent must consider whether to invoke section 93 to issue a further prohibition and may ask for more information. If the superintendent issues a section 93 prohibition, the initial 30‑day administrative period counts toward the superintendent’s order. That creates a two‑step administrative pathway: immediate removal by police, then centralized case review by the superintendent for longer suspensions.
Criminal offence for driving while prohibited and evidentiary certificate
This section creates the offence for knowingly driving while under a section 90.5 prohibition and prescribes penalties with defined minimums and maximums for first and subsequent convictions, including mandatory detention ranges on repeat offences. It also allows a superintendent’s certificate (showing the notice was served and in effect) to be admitted as evidence, shifting some proof burden away from live testimony and streamlining prosecutions for contraventions of the prohibition.
Regulatory commencement and delegated rule‑making
The Act comes into force by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and several provisions give broad regulation‑making authority — notably to expand the definition of reckless driving and to set evidentiary requirements and timelines for officer reporting. That means many operational details will be determined after passage via regulation rather than in the statute itself.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Road users and pedestrians — the immediate administrative tool aims to remove drivers assessed as posing acute danger from roads for a 30‑day window, reducing short‑term crash risk while authorities consider longer sanctions.
- Peace officers and police services — officers gain an immediate, non‑criminal enforcement option to stop dangerous driving behaviour without needing to effect an arrest or build a full criminal case on the spot.
- Superintendent of Motor Vehicles — centralizes review of serious driving incidents and allows the superintendent to coordinate longer administrative prohibitions, giving the registry more control over licensing outcomes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Drivers subject to a notice — face immediate loss of driving privileges for 30 days without an appeal route and risk criminal exposure if they drive while prohibited, shifting procedural protections away from pre‑deprivation review.
- Police agencies — must establish procedures, train officers on the new definition and evidentiary thresholds, and meet new administrative reporting and record‑keeping obligations within prescribed timelines.
- Superintendent’s office and registry staff — will absorb increased intake, review and decision workload and must handle the regulatory design and adjudicative steps without allocated resources in the text of the bill.
- Employers who rely on employee driving (trucking, delivery, ride‑hailing) — may face sudden workforce disruptions when staff are served immediate prohibitions and may see increased compliance and vetting costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between rapid, preventive removal of drivers judged dangerous (protecting public safety through immediate administrative action) and the individual’s interest in procedural safeguards and accurate fact‑finding (avoiding wrongful deprivation of driving privileges without timely review). The bill privileges speed and removal over pre‑deprivation appeals, placing heavy weight on post‑action reporting, superintendent review, and the clarity of delegated regulations to prevent misuse or error.
The bill trades immediacy for procedural safeguards. By removing the right to appeal an immediate administrative prohibition and allowing it to take effect on the spot, the statute prioritizes public safety risk mitigation but raises serious questions about how "reasonable grounds" will be documented and reviewed.
The officer reporting requirement is an important corrective — a missing or late transmission voids the prohibition — but the timelines and forms are left to regulation, creating near‑term uncertainty about operational practice and potential litigation over voided prohibitions.
The statutory definition of reckless driving bundles a mix of very concrete acts (wheel lifts, trunk passengers) with broad, context‑dependent standards ("without due care and attention," "likely to cause harm," proximity conduct). That mix increases the risk of inconsistent enforcement and invites challenges over vagueness and overbreadth.
The admissibility of a superintendent’s certificate streamlines prosecutions, but it also reduces the defence’s ability to challenge the underlying facts unless the statutory reporting regime and documentary standards are robust. Finally, the criminal penalties — particularly the guaranteed jail range on subsequent convictions — may shift more matters into the criminal justice system for repeat cases, with implications for courts and remand capacity.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.