Even a few traffic tickets can instigate a process here the Government prohibits you from driving. The charge of Driving While Prohibited is considered among the most serious driving offenses in the Motor Vehicle Act. It is one of the few offenses where jail is mandatory in certain circumstances.

The defenses in Driving While Prohibited cases are technical and typically very complex. Nevertheless, with the right defense strategy many Driving While Prohibited cases are successfully challenged.

Re: Drive While Prohibited (Client 3503)

Lawyer: Paul C. Doroshenko

Acumen Law client charged with driving while prohibited due to an indefinite suspension.

CASE FACTS:

Client stopped by the RCMP in Richmond who determine right away that the client is prohibited from driving in British Columbia. They seize his Alberta drivers license, his vehicle and forward a charge of Driving While Prohibited. Paul Doroshenko conducted the trial.

HELD: NOT GUILTY

At trial in Richmond provincial court evidence is called demonstrating that the accused was operating under an officially induced error. ICBC representatives told him that he “was good” and he concluded that he was okay to drive. There is a reasonable doubt as to whether he had the requisite mental state to commit the offense. Not guilty.

Re: Drive While Prohibited (Client 3281)

Lawyer: Paul C. Doroshenko

Accused client charged with driving while prohibited.

CASE FACTS:

The accused was issued a driving prohibition by a Surrey RCMP officer. The prohibition was outstanding and waiting to be issued by police because the driver had been mailed a Notice of Prohibition but he had not acknowledged it. The client, an auto mechanic, needed his license for work. The RCMP officer explained that he would be mailed an official prohibition.

Days later the client is pulled over by two Vancouver police officers and detained for driving while prohibited. He is issued an Appearance Notice to face the charge in court.

HELD: NOT GUILTY

The evidence of the police supports the conclusion that the police misinformed the client of his legal status and the process concerning the prohibition. It was reasonable for the client to rely on the RCMP. Acquittal.

Re: Driving While Prohibited (Client 3859)

Lawyer: Kyla Lee

Client was stopped by police and issued an Immediate Roadside Prohibition. Checks of the driver revealed that she was prohibited from driving. Client was charged with driving while prohibited.

CASE FACTS:

Client was stopped for running a stop sign. She was issued an Immediate Roadside Prohibition after an ASD test was conducted, which she failed. During checks on the police computer, police discovered she was prohibited from driving.

During trial, the main investigating officer testified. After cross-examination, lawyer Kyla Lee argued that there was no evidence to support the charge.

HELD: NOT GUILTY

The officer’s testimony was insufficient to support the charge of driving while prohibited. The necessary elements that had to be proven in the case were not proven and the client was acquitted.

Re: Drive While Prohibited (Client 516)

Vancouver Lawyer: Paul C. Doroshenko

Accused client charged with driving while prohibited due to a 24-hour driving prohibition.

CASE FACTS:

Client prohibited from driving for 24 hours. Pulled over driving during the 24-hour period and charged with driving while prohibited.

HELD: NOT GUILTY

The prosecutor must call evidence to prove that the 24-hour prohibition was lawful. Absent of evidence proving that the 24-hour prohibition was lawful, Crown counsel has not proven that the client was prohibited when driving.

Re: Drive While Prohibited (Client 10596)

Lawyer: Kyla Lee

Kyla Lee’s client charged with driving while prohibited after driving during a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.

CASE FACTS:

The client was stopped by police while driving and issued a 90-day IRP. He disputed the IRP and it was put on hold with a temporary license pending the decision. The temporary license expired but the client continued to drive after the prohibition was upheld. The client was caught by the same officer who issued the prohibition and charged with driving while prohibited.

HELD: NOT GUILTY

At trial, the Crown failed to prove the case. Although the Motor Vehicle Act allows the prosecution to prove that a person was prohibited and knew they were prohibited by filing ICBC documents, there was no evidence that the ICBC documents reinstating the prohibition after the temporary license was issued were served on the client. The Crown could not prove knowledge of the prohibition.

Re: Drive While Prohibited (Client 13238)

Lawyer: Kyla Lee

Kyla Lee’s client charged with driving while prohibited after driving during a court-ordered prohibition for prohibited driving previously.

CASE FACTS:

Police on Vancouver Island were conducting a roadblock. A car approached the roadblock and the driver was asked to produce a license. The driver could not produce a license. When the driver was asked to pull to the side, they took off. Police located the vehicle a few blocks away and conducted an investigation which led to some evidence linking the client to the car.

HELD: CHARGES DROPPED AFTER HEARING FROM KYLA LEE

The Crown could not prove the driver was the client. Although some belongings that seemed to be associated to the client were located in the car, and although the officer was able to recognize the driver from the police photograph in the police records, there was only a circumstantial case that he was driving. This was insufficient evidence to prove guilt.