'Kindly accept my file': B.C. woman finds victory in quest for traffic justice

Like many a bad story, Yoshnika Shah's tale of woe beginson a dark and stormy night. Nearly three years later, it's still not over. But the clouds have parted a little.

What began with a rollover on B.C.'s most notorious stretch of highway in December 2015 has turned into an odyssey of legal indignityfor the 29-year-old.

Shahclaimed she was handed a ticket for speeding and driving without a licence while she lay unconscious in a hospital bed.

A court registry employee wouldn't let her file evidence when she tried to dispute the ticket a dispute she then lost because she didn't file any evidence.

And she lost an appeal of that decision because she didn't understand the justice system.

Finally this week Shah found a judge to listen.

"Ms. Shah was entitled to put her entire case before [the judge]at the time he reviewed her application to dispute the ticket," Madam Justice Wendy Baker wrote in her decision.

"It is clear ... that her inability to put the full record before him did impact his decision making."

'So I can get my life back on track'

Baker's reasons for judgment are brief, but the case highlights thedifficulties facing self-represented litigants as they negotiate British Columbia's overburdened court system.

Even heartfelt arguments can fail if they don't meet procedural requirements.

Shah a teacher who came to Canada from India has filed dozens of pages of "exhibits" in B.C. Supreme Court in her bid to clear her name.

She soughta crash report from Toyota to prove she was driving under the speed limit at the time of the accident.

And she tried to file documentary evidence showingshe held an international driver's licence.

She claimed that proving her innocence was crucial to both her credit rating and her ability to find work.

"Kindly accept my file," she wrote the court in February 2018in a letter in which she described herself as "a highly educated girl."

"Please consider this affidavit and petition so I can get my life back on track and live a normal life that I deserve."

Skull fracture, memory loss, 'raccoon eyes'

According to documents filed in the case, Shah was driving to Kamloops on Dec. 3, 2015 when her car went off the road. She claimed there were four other accidents that night.

The speed limit was 110 km/h but Shah claimedherToyota crash diagnostics showed that she was driving 75 km/h or less at the time of the accident.

She was taken to hospital in Kamloops with a skull fracture, memory loss and "raccoon eyes."

Shah claimedshe was in intensive care and that when she woke up, a nurse handed her a ticket for speeding and driving without a licence.

"It is unsigned, which indicates Ms. Shah was unconscious while it was being issued," she wrote.

Shah claimedshe had no family and no choice but to return to Mumbai two days after her release from hospital to recover withher parents.

But as a result, she missed the 30-day window to dispute the ticket and was deemed to have pleaded guilty.

'No travel documents submitted'

In January 2017, Shah returned to Canada and began the process of trying to dispute the ticket.

According to Baker's ruling, she went to the court registry with copies of her ticket to Mumbaito prove she was out of the country.

But she was only allowed to file a one-page affidavit summarizing her position.

Judicial Justice Zahid Makhdoom denied her bid for a new hearing saying: "No proof of necessity, no travel documents submitted."

The next step was her first petition to B.C. Supreme Court. The judge in that case said Shah was asking for something the court couldn't give.

And anyway, the judge said, Makhdoom's decision was reasonable given the lack of documents before him.

'This was the real issue before me'

Shah was also self-represented in her second petition to B.C. Supreme Court, which concludes with the words: "through no fault of the defendant, he or she did not have an opportunity to dispute the allegation."

B.C.'s attorney general filed an 11-page response prepared by a leading law firm with dozens of lawyers in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Yellowknife.

It argues that Shah's petition is barred by "res judicata" the "principle that once the court has decided a matter it cannot be dealt with again in another lawsuit or proceeding."

The attorney general also accused Shah of following the wrong legal procedure.

Bakeragreed, but suggested that might not be the point.

"While she has again sought relief which is not available to her on judicial review, in the course of submissions it became clear that the true issue before me on this judicial review was whether Ms. Shah had an opportunity to present her full case," the judge wrote.

"Counsel for the attorney general agreed this was the real issue before me."

Baker's ruling doesn't mean Shah has won her battle.

But it does mean she'll get to make her case.

Shah told the CBCthat everyone from the attorney general to the judges hasbeen helpful in guiding her through what she called a "long and tedious process."

"What I appreciate about Canada is that the court system here is designed to empower victims by allowing us to self represent, when everyone else fails to help," she said in an email.

"I still do have faith in the justice system here and believe Iwill be able to obtain justice for the wrong done to me."