In a charge for driving while prohibited, there are three things that the Crown has to prove. The first is that you were prohibited from driving, the second is that you knew you were prohibited from driving and the third is that you drove.
Proving that you were prohibited from driving is an easy thing to prove, as all they have to produce is the filed documents to show that you were given a driving prohibition. Or they can call the officer who issued a prohibition to you to provide evidence that you were given the prohibition.
The third one, proving that you drove, is also very easy. All the Crown has to do is call the officer that pulled you over and have him point you out, to say he saw you driving. And unless you didn’t actually drive, or there’s some doubt around it, that’s an easy thing to prove.
What the Crown needs to prove knowledge
So, proving knowledge in a driving while prohibited case is really where most of these cases hinge.
To prove knowledge, the Crown has a shortcut under the Motor Vehicle Act, where rather than having to call a witness to prove that you knew you were prohibited, all the prosecution has to do is take the driving prohibition document and hand it up to the judge.
They don’t have to call the police that gave you the prohibition or get a signed document from ICBC, all they have to produce is the driving prohibition document and that is proof enough.
That document not only proves that you were prohibited from driving, but it also can be used to prove knew about that driving prohibition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Burden of proof
This document means that if you are pulled over at a roadside, it doesn’t even matter if you admit at a roadside stop you don’t have your license because you are prohibited, the prosecution still only needs the document.
However, it is important to never admit to knowing anyways, as knowledge in a driving while prohibited case is where you have the most defences. And even though there’s an evidentiary shortcut the Crown can take, it’s still only a presumption, so it can be rebutted.
Anytime there’s a presumption in law where the Crown bears the burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt, any such presumption is a rebuttable presumption. This means that you can put in evidence to raise a reasonable doubt about the application of that presumption.
Willful blindness and recklessness
What the court says about knowledge in regards to driving while prohibited, is that it is a full mens rea offence, so that means the Crown has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that a person has actual knowledge of the prohibition. They can also prove that a person is willfully blind or reckless with respect to knowledge.
There was a case recently in BC where a man received a prohibition on his BC license, but never did anything about it because it happened shortly before he moved to Ontario in 2012. While in Ontario, he was able to get a license there and drive around without any problems.
In 2019, he returned to BC and proceed to get a BC ID, but continued to drive using his Ontario driver’s license. He was pulled over in January 2021, and when asked to produce his license, he gave over his Ontario one, despite having his BC ID card, meaning he had been living there.
While in court, he argued that he didn’t know he was still prohibited, only that he owed ICBC a bunch of money. Even though there was documentation from 2012 in his case showing he was prohibited from driving in 2012, he still tried to give reasonable doubt that he knew he was still prohibited in BC.
The judge rejected this, reasoning that he didn’t believe him because the man knew he had outstanding fines and went to get BC ID but not a license, which suggested he didn’t want to know if he was still prohibited or not.
This was effectively a willful blindness case, in the sense that the man didn’t want to know the truth, so he didn’t try to get a BC license when he came back.
This is an example of how even though the Crown has to prove you knew, they can also prove this by proving you didn’t want to know and didn’t take any steps to investigate.
Driving prohibition documents
If there’s a certificate from the Superintendent of motor vehicles saying there’s a driving prohibition that was served to you, then that’s all the Crown needs to establish actual knowledge of the prohibition.
This proof will go beyond willful blindness, and beyond recklessness straight to actual knowledge just by filing those documents.
Can you fight this?
Presumption of knowledge is something that is rebuttable though, through showing a mistake of fact. However, this does not include not understanding the prohibition, not reading the document or losing it.
If you try to say you did not understand the document because English is not your first language, that will not work. It is your burden under the law to get someone to translate the document for you and even further, take action to understand what it is saying.
The same goes for the excuse of losing the document, it is on you to call ICBC if you lost it to get details on what it said.
Even if you do read it and still don’t understand what it says, you should call a lawyer. In fact, if the police ever give you paperwork for a driving prohibition, you should always call a lawyer.
Call a lawyer
Calling a lawyer is perhaps one of the most important things to do as soon as you receive paperwork from the police.
Not only to understand what it says and means, but also because you can dispute a ticket, and you’ll want to know what your steps are to dispute.
You don’t want to get caught in a situation where you didn’t know you were prohibited factually, but you knew you were prohibited legally, as those two things are different. Even if you didn’t actually know, the Crown can still prove that you legally knew you were prohibited by demonstrating you didn’t want to know because you didn’t read the
documentation.
Getting a lawyer right away is the best chance you have of successfully fighting a driving while prohibited case.