The short version is that there is no change to the status quo. The legislation that was challenged in the Goodwin cases (the first version of the Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme) was found to be unconstitutional for the reasons given by Justice Sigurdson. The Court commented specifically that the amendments to the legislation, i.e., the current version of IRP laws, demonstrate that there can be a more reasonable review process. This likely shuts down any further challenges to the current version of the law.
As far as Wilson is concerned, the Court concluded that the argument suffers from a fatal flaw: the legislation is not ambiguous. I knew going in that I had a tough, mostly impossible case. Getting leave to have my argument heard was a surprising feat. I am not disappointed with the work I did, and I fought to the end for my clients and a cause that I believe in. As a lawyer, that's my job and I did it as well as I possibly could have. I have confidence that the Supreme Court of Canada is applying the law fairly and correctly and hearing all cases with an open mind.
Still, to be human means it's hard to not get the result you want. Many people do not realize that being a lawyer is like riding a roller coaster every day. There are highs when you are victorious for your client, and lows when you are not.
So going forward I continue to do what I've been doing all along: representing my clients to the best of my ability and continuing to challenge the Immediate Roadside Prohibition law and any other law that impacts the rights and freedoms of drivers in this province.