What is the test for a decision by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles to prohibit an 18-year-old driver from driving for two months?

The appellant argues that the Superintendent’s decision to prohibit him from driving for two months was unreasonable. That is so, it is argued, because the imposition of a prohibition is, in the language of the Superintendent’s policies and guidelines, “the most serious intervention” open to him and ought not to have been imposed, according to the appellant, in his circumstances for a number of reasons. First, although he is subject to the graduated licensing program, he is not an inexperienced driver given that his driving record reveals that he was first granted a driver’s licence in this province in September 1998. Second, his driving record consists of three moving violations, none of which involved excessive speed and, to the extent that they reveal a pattern that suggests that his driving habits are improving. While emphasizing, as Rogers J. pointed out in Thomas v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) at para. 12 that the grid is not simply an algorithm that dictates the result in any particular instance, if the Superintendent had applied the grid applicable to experienced drivers, he would not be subject to a prohibition.