TLDR; You are most correct, the law is currently quite clear given the case you shared (thanks!). Precedent more a general principle in lower courts and not very binding unless a higher court has handed down a verdict. And the cases of guilty verdicts seem to all involve a general negligence in other ways, which makes me wonder laws would be enforced for those who aren't being foolish or disrespectful. There may be options to appeal and have the ban overturned, and I shared my detailed amateur legal defense appraisal.
**
Steve that is some great background on the situation, and you are most correct about the legal precedent being rejected in B.C. I also agree that motorists can now be charged with driving without insurance, the law has been clear. I have a couple of thoughts regarding the application, jurisdiction, and potential for appeal, however.
I was able to find the official court documents for the case you mentioned here:
Access all information related to judgment R. v. Calderone, 2015 BCPC 114 (CanLII) on CanLII.
www.canlii.org
I did some looking into the application of "stare decisis" or legal precedent in Canada and found this:
"In practice today the doctrine means only that prior decisions of higher courts are binding on lower courts of the same jurisdiction, for neither the Supreme Court of Canada nor many of the provincial courts of appeal consider themselves bound by their own previous decisions. Lower courts are also free to analyse the reasons (ratio decidendi) given by the higher court and to decide, in light of the facts of the actual dispute before them, whether to apply the precedent or to distinguish the rule contained on the basis of factual differences in the 2 cases."
So precedent was not really binding in any of the cases unless the SCC or a court of appeal agreed with that defense.
In terms of the enforcement of the law, it is important for us to remember that most of the cases have involved people who have been generally reckless about what they are doing. The Calderone case involved a guy driving without proper lights, brakes, or safety equipment and the officer reported noticing the noise of his vehicle (possibly an expansion chamber with nothing to filter or muffle the sound?). This would definitely get the attention of the police, as well as completely destroy any defence based on R v. Davies for not needing insurance based on a motor vehicle presenting a danger to others (as the Ontario judge stated in their ruling).
Some of the other cases of cited as precedent in the Calderone ruling also involved someone driving a go-kart on the road (!?) and a person being convicted after riding an e-bike without pedals and being stopped numerous times. These seem like fairly flagrant actions, which would both make being charged more likely and more difficult to defend. I have read of cases where people were charged with driving ebikes while drunk with a baby in a home-made trailer or with an 18-month old passenger on the back, for example, but the "no passengers under 16" ebike laws in Ontario seem to be ignored for older kids and teenagers wearing helmets on the back of a safely ridden bike.
But, as you have said, it seems like If a person was following all safety procedures, had a license, wore a helmet, used a good muffler etc. etc. they may likely be left alone but are technically breaking the law in BC and likely all of Canada. How this plays out in other provinces and future cases is another matter.
I do wonder if a person who was charged for driving without insurance, while being very diligent about safety, respect etc, could appeal as a violation of section 7. of the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms: the "harm principle" has been clarified by the SCC in the case Canada (AG) v Bedford,
2013 SCC 72 which protects citizens from laws that are "arbitrary", "over-reaching", or "disproportionate". Perhaps someone can make a case that the laws/fines are abitrary.
-Negligible differences in risks between ebikes and gas bikes (when operated properly).
-The environmental advantages of an e-bike over a 2-stroke are also debateable, given that lithium mining and battery production are extremely toxic and require a lot of energy to produce (nevermind the political gong show going on with the completely unjustified ousting of Evo Morales in order to secure US interests in the lithium deposits found there... almost as much of a political powder-keg as oil!). The tiny amount of gasoline required for a small 2 stroke to ,operate could be even argued as more responsible.
-Small gas engines can be cheaper to build and maintain (gas is cheap, ebike batteries are expensive!), and therefore it is economic discrimination to ban them outright without cause.
I only mention this in the hopes that these laws will be amended to be more fair and that we will continue on our slow path of choosing the benefits of regulation over complete bans as we have in the cases of assisted suicide, sex work, and cannabis. Perhaps someone will read my long-winded ramble and be inspired to lawyer up and fight their charges so that we can all ride without fear
is capable of being propelled by muscular power,