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. Y.T. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Assault; Assault by Choking.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with criminal charges.
Result: After providing Crown counsel with our client's  positive psychological counselling report, Mr. Gauthier  was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Forcible Entry; Assault.
Issue: Given our client's personal circumstances and the circumstances of the alleged incident, whether ther was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Upon considering the information provided and representations made by Mr. Gauthier, Crown counsel directed a stay of proceedings, brining the matter to an end. no criminal record.

R. v. B.C. – Prince Rupert Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove that the complainant was credible and reliable in this three day trial that involved an allegation of sexual assault.
Result: After Mr. Gauthier vigorously cross examined the complainant, the trial judge accepted Mr. Gauthier's submissions and found our client not guilty. An acquittal was entered. No criminal record; no jail time.

R. v. A.B. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Theft Under $5000.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: After considering Mr. Gauthier's representations regarding the evidence and our client's circumstances, Crown withdrew the charge. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Uttering a threat; Posession of a weapon (knife) for a dangerous purpose.
Issue: Given our client's circumstances and the circumstances of the incident, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide Crown with background information about our client and the incident which caused Crown to conclude it was not in the public interest to continue the prosecution. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. M.M. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution in this $900 shoplifting case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel about our client's personal circumstances, resulting in Crown referring our client to the Alternative Measures program. No criminal record.

R. v. J.Z. & Q.M. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charges: Fraud Over $5,000.
Issue: Whether our client's were responsible for approximately $15,000 in false claims unknowingly made in their names by a health care provider.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to settle with the insurance provider. No criminal charges were forwarded against our clients. Mr. Gauthier was also able to assist with the first steps of recovering the funds from the dishonest health care provider. No criminal record.

R. v. V.N. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Assault (police investigation).
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier opposed the police application to extend the time period they could continue to retain seized evidence and he provided advice to our client in steering him through the investigation. The matter concluded with no criminal charges being forwarded to Crown. No criminal record.

R. v. R.T. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge: Insurance Fraud Under $5,000 investigation.
Issue: Given our client's rehabilitation and repayment of disputed claims, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges forwarded. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction in this case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that, given the lack of cooperation by the complainant, that there was no prospect of a conviction. Crown counsel did not approve any charges and, on Mr. Mines' representations, agreed to cancel the scheduled court date and to direct police to cancel our client's Undertaking to Appear. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Mischief Over $5000.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove the value of damage alleged to have been caused by our client.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that because it could not accurately prove the value of damage, and that our client had taken appropriate steps of self-rehabilitation,  Crown elected to not approve any charges. No criminal record.

R. v. H.K. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution in this "road rage" case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel about our client's personal circumstances and the circumstances of the incident which resulted in Crown staying the charge after our client completed Alternative Measures. 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