You are here: / / Driving While Prohibited
  • Vancouver at night

Driving While Prohibited

The Charge

British Columbia drivers can become prohibited drivers if, as part of a sentence to a Criminal Code or Motor Vehicle Act offence, a judge imposes a period of prohibition. Likewise, a driver can become prohibited if they blow a “warn” or a “fail” as the result of an Immediate Roadside Prohibition investigation. Furthermore, a driver can be prohibited by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles when they accumulate a bad driving record, including offences that carry demerit points, and they are served with a Notice of Intent to Prohibit.

Driving while prohibited is a serious matter under both the Criminal Code and the Motor Vehicle Act. Under either statute, a first time offender faces a mandatory 12-month driving prohibition and a substantial fine of $500 – $2,000. When prosecuted by indictment, the maximum sentence may be 10 years jail. If prosecuted summarily, the maximum sentence may be two years less a day. In order to obtain a guilty verdict for driving while prohibited, the Crown must prove (a) that the driver was, in fact, prohibited by the courts or the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and that (b) the driver had knowledge that they were prohibited.

The Investigation

The Automated Licence Plate Recognition (ALRP) System is a licence plate recognition system employed by BC police agencies that allows vehicles observed by police cameras to have their licence plate read and recorded. The goal is to reduce motor vehicle violations, in particular those related to unlicensed, uninsured and prohibited drivers. Police will use this technology, or at times, will simply detain and check a driver to see if they are properly licensed. Upon pulling over a vehicle which police suspect is being driven by a prohibited driver, the officer will attempt to illicit an incriminating admission by the driver in which they acknowledge that they are prohibited. It is useful to know that a driver, though obligated to produce a valid driver’s licence and to identify themselves to police, has no obligation to engage in a conversation regarding any knowledge of a driving prohibition.

Recent Successes

R. v. S.B. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Carrying a Concealed Weapon.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Johnston was able to provide to Crown counsel regarding the circumstances of the incident and our client's background, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnston persuaded Crown counsel that there was insufficient public interest, leading Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. M.A. Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge: Insurance Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Given our client's rehabilitation and repayment of the disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges were forwarded. No criminal record.

R. v. D.S. – Whitehorse Yukon Territorial Court

Charge: Section 810 Recognizance (Peace Bond) Application.
Issue: Whether the Informant could prove her allegations on a balance of probabilities.
Result: After Mr. Gauthier' communications with the Informant, she declined to advance the case and, on the day of the trial, the court withdrew the Application. No record.

R. v. E.N. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Gauthier provided to Crown counsel regarding our client's personal circumstances and the circumstances of the alleged offence, whether it was appropriate to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown that there wa sno substantial likelihood of a conviction resulting ultimately in Crown declining to approve a charge. No criminal record.

R. v. E.N. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Mischief Under $5000.
Issue: Given the information Mr. Gauthier provided to Crown counsel regarding our client’s personal circumstances and the circumstances of the alleged offence, whether it was appropriate to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown that there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction resulting ultimately in Crown declining to approve a charge. No criminal record.

R. v. K.D. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Failing to Remain at the Scene of an Accident.
Issue: Whether our client's Charter rights were breached due to unreasonable delay.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel that ultimately caused Crown  to proceed against our client as the owner and not the driver of the vehicle. He plead to the lesser charge of Failing to Remain under the Motor Vehicle Act and received a fine, but no driving prohibition. No criminal record.

R. v. H.C. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether the complainant held herself out to be at least 16 years of age and whether our client took reasonable steps to ascertain her age.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel on our client's behalf that established that our client did take reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age. In the result, Crown declined to approve any criminal charges. No criminal record.

R. v. A.L. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Tax Evasion (Excise Tax Act); Fraud Over $5000 x2.
Issue: Given our client's cooperation with the investigation, his civil settlement and his genuine remorse, whether a jail sentence was appropriate for this almost one million dollar tax evasion case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide medical and financial information to Crown counsel that ultimately led Crown to proceed on the fraud charges rather than seeking an almost one million dollar mandatory fine under the Excise Tax Act. The Court accepted the joint submission for a 2 year less a day conditional sentence and probation. No jail.

R. v. A.R. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest continue with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed with a Peace Bond rather than the criminal assault charge. No criminal record.

R. v. T.C. – Fraud Over $5000 Investigation

Charge: Fraud Over $5000.
Issue: Given the civil settlement of this $245,000 misappropriation from employer case, whether there was any interest in pursuing  a criminal investigation and prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to negotiate a civil settlement and obtained a Final Release from the complainant. No criminal investigation occurred. No risk of jail or criminal prosecution.

R. v. Q.D.T. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to continue the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures program. Upon completion of Alternative Measures, Crown enteresd a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. A.M. – Possession of Stolen Property Investigation – Squamish RCMP

Charge: Possession of Stolen Property (motor vehicles).
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence that our client was aware that the vehicles that he possessed had been obtained by the commission of crimes.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to steer our client through the police investigation. Ultimately, based on insufficient evidence, police declined to forward charges against our client. No prosecution. No criminal record.
View All

The Defence

While it is not possible to go “behind” the driving prohibition by arguing that the court, or the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles should not have prohibited the driver to start with, a defence to prohibited driving is that the driver had no knowledge of the prohibition having been imposed. Significantly, the Crown has the burden of proving that the accused knew they were the subject of a driving prohibition. This can be problematic for the Crown when, for example, they are trying to prove knowledge by the fact the Superintendent mailed a Notice of Intent to Prohibit to the accused. As experienced defence lawyers, we can present arguments that challenge the presumption that the accused was ever aware of the prohibition. For example, just because a letter was mailed, it does not follow that the letter was actually received or read by the accused. Likewise, it may be difficult for an officer who issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition to prove that he actually served notice of the prohibition on the accused. In rare cases, it is possible to advocate the defence of “necessity” in prohibited driving cases. Where, for example, a prohibited driver chooses to drive in order to save a life, the court ought to find the driver not guilty.

Driving while prohibited charges are an area in which we have had great success in being able to negotiate satisfactory resolutions for our clients. By presenting Crown counsel with a full background of our client’s circumstances, and reasons for driving, we have been able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser, related offence of driving without holding a valid driver’s licence, under s. 24 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The advantage of this offence is that it does not require any mandatory driving prohibition whatsoever.

Start with a free consultation.

If you are being investigated by police or if you’ve been charged with a criminal or driving offence, don’t face the problem alone. Being accused of an offence is stressful. The prospects of a criminal record or jail sentence can be daunting. Even if you think there is no defence, we may be able to help. To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers, contact us now.

Connect