When you receive mail from the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (aka: RoadSafetyBC) it is never a good idea to ignore it. Garret Cole received a driving prohibition notice and did not open the envelope. Shortly after that he was found driving by police and charged. At trial he tried to convince the court that he did not know that he was a prohibited driver.
The case of R v Cole shows that wilful blindness is not a defence to a charge of driving while prohibited.
Driving Prohibition Notice
Mr. Cole received a notice of intent to prohibit in the mail from the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles that advised him he that he was entitled to have the prohibition reviewed. Mr. Cole did pay the fee and had the review conducted.
Wilful Blindness
Following the review he received mail from Superintendent notifying him of a driving prohibition. He signed a receipt for the letter but did not open the envelope to see what it contained.
Mr. Cole was stopped by police while driving in Courtenay and was charged for driving while prohibited.
Defence Fails
At trial, Mr. Cole did not deny that he had received the letter from the Superintendent, just that he had never read it and did not know that he was prohibited from driving. He gave a number of reasons for not reading the contents of the envelope.
Judge Sutton decided that Mr. Cole decided not to open the envelope, even in the face of the notice of intent and the review that came before it. This amounted to wilful blindness and had he opened the envelope rather than deliberately ignoring it, he would have know that he was prohibited from driving.
A conviction was entered to the charge.
Learn More
Share This Article
- Log in to post comments