A B.C. Supreme Court judge has flipped a Surrey provincial court decision to not permit an accused man a second chance to fight a traffic ticket after he didn't show up on the first court date because he was sick.

Marcin Stoklosa filed for a judicial review in B.C Supreme Court in Vancouver of Judicial Justice Robert Lesperance's Jan. 23, 2025 decision to dismiss his application for the second chance.

Justice Sheila Tucker in her noted that a police officer issued Stoklosa a ticket under the Motor Vehicle Act on June 28, 2024 and he was notified his hearing would be on Dec. 4, 2024. But because he failed to appear on that date, the ticket was considered undisputed and Stoklosa was deemed to have pleaded guilty.

In response, Stoklosa applied for an order to have the conviction struck down and to let him dispute his ticket, but Lesperance dismissed this. Again, in response Stoklosa petitioned the higher court to set the Surrey decision aside on judicial review. 

Stoklosa had made his application under the Offence Act, filing an affidavit he received a Notice of Hearing in the mail indicating his hearing was set for Dec. 4, 2024 at Surrey provincial court and that he blocked off that date to attend.

" Approximately two days before the hearing date, I became sick," he told the court. "I was hoping I would feel better to attend the hearing date, but I was preparing myself in case I would not be able to attend due to my illness. I attempted to file a letter with the court seeking an adjournment of the Violation Ticket. Through no fault of my own I was not able to attend the hearing date on December 4, 2024, as I was sick."

Tucker noted the reasons given in the decision to deny his application were "very brief. They state: 'No evidence was supplied to confirm illness.''

Stoklosa's lawyer argued the judicial justice's decision was unreasonable, Tucker noted in her reasons for judgment, "because it presumes that a person can (and should) visit a physician for every illness and thus be in a position to produce a physician香蕉视频直播檚 note. She contends that such an expectation is unrealistic and unfair. She observes that many British Columbians lack a family doctor and submits that people who are not critically ill, but rather apparently suffering from a cold or flu, act reasonably by staying home, resting and/or taking medication."

While Tucker did not agree with the proposition the judicial justice was "effectively requiring a physician香蕉视频直播檚 note," she noted, "I agree that the language regarding confirmation is problematic. It is unclear whether the judicial justice made a finding as to his state of satisfaction on the evidence before him under the application, or was taking the view that there was a stand-alone requirement for confirmation of illness. Accordingly, I am unable to say that the decision discloses a rational chain of analysis and reasonable reasoning process leading up to the conclusion.

"The reasons in the decision are similarly unclear as to the manner in which the application failed to satisfy the judicial justice. I am satisfied that decision must be set aside as unreasonable and the application considered anew," Tucker concluded. "The petition is allowed. The application is remitted to the provincial court for reconsideration by a different judicial justice."