Call it a win for the big guy.

An epic battle that saw TransLink accused of wasting judicial resources hounding a student into court over a $173 ticket has ended in a ruling to warm a transit authority's heart: there's no room for excuses when it comes to fare evasion.

'No basis' for conclusion

More than three years after Inna Danylyuk inadvertently boarded a bus with her boyfriend's U-Pass instead of her own valid U-Pass, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elaine Adair has reinstated a ticket against the former Langara student.​

Adair quashed a provincial court decision by Judicial Justice Zahid Makhdoom, who sided with Danylyuk and her attempts to fight the ticket through several layers of appeal.

Inna Danylyuk claimed student U-Passes look virtually identical, which is why she accidentally boarded a bus with her boyfriend's. (Langara)

Essentially, Adair found that Makhdoom overstepped his authority by conducting a hearing into the facts of the case when the legislation only allowed him to consider the reasonableness of a decision by the arbitrator who ruled against Danylyuk.

"The judicial justice improperly embarked upon his own analysis of the facts and law and, based on that analysis, substituted his own view of the validity of the ticket for that of the arbitrator," Adair wrote.

"In light of the uncontroverted evidence before the arbitrator, the clear requirement to present valid proof of payment ... and the limited grounds for cancellation of a ticket ... there was no basis for concluding that the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable on the facts or the law. In my opinion, it was not."

Rules are rules

Danylyuk claimed she grabbed the wrong pass on the way out the door because she was in a hurry and the U-Passes both looked the same.

She pleaded her case to a transit officer, a reviewer and an arbitrator.

No one questioned the veracity of her claim; TransLink's supervisor of fare infraction even said he empathized with her situation. But rules are rules.

There are only three grounds for cancellation of a ticket: the person didn't commit the act as alleged; the ticket doesn't comply with the legislation; or "relevant information was not submitted in the dispute procedure."

In his original decision, Makhdoom not only accepted Danylyuk's explanation, he asked why TransLink was so bent on fighting her.

He wrote that "TransLink would have been better off demonstrating diligence in exercise of its fiduciary duties to the people of this province and save a student, likely already in debt, from incurring further indebtedness."

Strict vs absolute liability

But the implications of the Supreme Court ruling as it applies to other transit users reach far beyond a $173 ticket.

In his decision, Makhdoom, the provincial judicial justice, also concluded that fare evasion should be considered a strict liability offence as opposed to an absolute liability offence.

It may sound like splitting hairs, but the difference between the two is significant.

With strict liability, an accused can avoid liability for an offence by proving that they took all reasonable care and did their due diligence; with absolute liability, the accused can't get out of a ticket by showing they weren't at fault.

TransLink argued that the legislation was intended to make sure that anyone using transit services pays a fare — in other words, not a strict but an absolute liability.

The judge agreed.

"Tickets are issued to enforce the mandatory duty to pay fares." Adair wrote.

"Absolute liability is the most effective way to ensure a stable and predictable source of income for those purposes and to ensure that the fare collection process cannot be frustrated."