I think if you look at line (18) where the Judge discusses what is legal vs what isn't as far a bikes with electric motors and gasoline engines here in B.C. I think you will find the answer to your question.
He does talk about it in Section (19) as well I believe.
Correct, the judge did discuss what is legal vs what is'nt, he did not discuss what is legal vs what is illegal, no where does he say that the defendants contraption or use was / is illegal. Not legal does NOT equal illegal, stop confusing the two.
I am in agreement with the words in part [18]
[18] The Legislature has chosen not to impose that requirement of insurance on those operating a bicycle, even a bicycle powered by a low powered electric engine. But the very same bicycle powered by a low powered gasoline engine cannot be operated on a highway. It has made a bright-line decision to differentiate the two. Because this gas powered bicycle cannot be equipped in all respects in compliance with the Motor Vehicle Act and Regulations [s. 219(1)], it cannot be insured for operation on a highway.
Cannot be
operated on a highway, operative word there is OPERATE, it is not in the context you think it's in, means cannot be given a permit, cannot be given licence, cannot be given certificate, meaning ICBC (or whoever "runs the show there") does not have authority under legislation to issue licence for such activity, meaning that it is not an option for them (because the legislature has not made it a reqirement nor granted allowance), therefore cannot be operated on a highway. Notice the words "use or ride" were not in the analysis, only operate because when he says operate he does not mean use / ride, he means licence, permit. They do, however, state that no insurance is required for a bicycle or electric bicycle. Nothing there though says that a insurance is required for the gas bicycle. To clarify, if it were to mean what you mis-think it to mean, he would have wrote " The Legislature has chosen TO impose a requirement of insurance on those operating a bicycle powered by a low powered gasoline engine." No such words were said.
These smart people are word smiths, problem is, most people dont read properly and worse, don't know what words really mean.
Look at it like this - the legislature has given permission for one, but not having permission for the other does not mean it is forbidden, the legislature has not expressly forbidden carving wood statues either, does that mean it is forbidden? If the legislature said they allow the making of sandcastles on the beach in summer, does that mean the legislature makes it an offence to make snowcastles on the beach in winter (not that BC get winter mind you) ? Now if the legislature said they allow the making of sandcastles on the beach in summer and no permit or insurance is required, does that mean the snowcastles require a permit and or insurance ? No. Further, if the legislature says it's ok to make sandcastles, does that mean prior to them saying it's ok it was forbidden?, or illegal?, or not legal?. I'm not aware that the legislature has indeed inacted such legislation, so does that mean building sandcastles reqires a permit or insurance, is the activity not legal or illegal? Note: last sentence is not a question but sarcastic statement.
fasteddy, the way you see these "motorized bicycles", one might say that you see sandcastles as "illegal" because a structure is being built on property not owned by the sancastle builder, no building permit was or can be issued, and the builders are not licenced as sandbuilding contractors by the province.
If this went to court because a cop charged someone, how do you think that would play out? Probably exactly like this case law we are discussing, right?
[19] If a motor vehicle, which cannot be insured because it does not meet the statutory standards to do so, is operated on a highway, can the driver be convicted of operating that motor vehicle on a highway without insurance. In my view, the driver cannot. I conclude that that provision was not intended by the Legislature to apply to that factual circumstance.
Basically he is saying that because the "gas bike" does not have all the equipment (that is required of a proper legal motor-cycle or similar) of section 219, it cannot be insured as one simply because it is not one, it is a different animal, no where does the legislature or the Judicial Justice say it is required. The equipment (or lack of) of s219 sets the two things apart and diferentiates them (motorized bicycle from motorcycle, and motorized bicycle from PAB), as he stated when he said of the legislature "It has made a bright-line decision to differentiate the two."
I conclude that that provision was not intended by the Legislature to apply to that factual circumstance.
That factual circumstance here is the defendants contraption, therefore, he concludes that the provision was not intended by the legislature to apply to the defendants contraption.
Notice the missing things - he was never charged with failing to register a motor-vehicle, nor did the judge bring it up, no one mentions if it's even required to be registered. The judge knew that this was going to be in the papers because the defendant belongs to some group out in BC (as I am led to believe but have no proff) and he had just over 3 months to make a decision and choose his words carefully.
