Drive Disqualified

• R v Alexis

  [1999] BCCA 684 · British Columbia Court of Appeal · driving while prohibited

  R. v. Alexis; R. v. Sloan

  1999 BCCA 684, [1999] B.C.J. No. 2666
  British Columbia Court of Appeal — Proudfoot, Ryan, Saunders JJ.A. | November 19, 1999

  ---

  Background

  Two men got caught driving while prohibited and faced identical problems with their certificates. Dennett Robert Sloan was pulled over for speeding on March 5, 1997, driving on a valid Alberta license — but a computer check revealed he was prohibited from driving in B.C. Jessie Alexis was charged on October 25, 1996, for driving while prohibited under the Criminal Code.

  The Crown's case against both men relied on certificates of disqualification that contained the same bizarre typographical error: everywhere the number "1" should have appeared, someone had typed the lowercase letter "i" — complete with dots. So instead of "19 SEPTEMBER 1969" it read "i9 SEPTEMBER i969," and "05 MARCH 1997" became "05 MARCH i997." The trial judge called it "sloppy documentation" and refused to admit either certificate, acquitting both men.

  Issues

  1. Does a typographical error substituting "i" for "1" throughout a certificate make it too unreliable or ambiguous to admit as evidence?
  2. When a certificate is improperly excluded and a defendant wants to present a defence, should the matter go to a new trial or result in a conviction?

  The Reliability vs. Ambiguity Test

  The Court of Appeal distinguished between two different problems: ambiguity and reliability. For ambiguity, they applied a simple test from a 1915 House of Lords case: could this description fit any other person? The answer was clearly no — despite the typing errors, there was no doubt about Sloan's identity (driver's license number 3693053, born September 19, 1969) or Alexis's identity (license number 4704357, born March 16, 1964).

  On reliability, the court was more critical of the trial judge's reasoning. Justice Saunders wrote that concluding the certificate "might be unreliable was purely speculative" and that "it is wrong not to rely on probative evidence based on pure speculation." The court found that a consistent typing mistake throughout the document didn't indicate the underlying information was unreliable — just that someone made the same error repeatedly.

  The court noted that the certificates otherwise complied with all statutory requirements under both the Motor Vehicle Act and Criminal Code sections 259(4) and 260(5), which allow certificates as proof of driving prohibitions without requiring proof of the registrar's signature.

  Different Outcomes for Different Situations

  Here's where the cases diverged. In Alexis, the only issue at trial was whether the certificate was admissible — he'd already admitted to driving that day. Since the Court of Appeal found the certificate should have been admitted, they simply dismissed his appeal and let the conviction stand.

  But Sloan was different. His lawyer had told the court that if the certificate was admitted, Sloan wanted to present a full defence. Since he never got that chance, the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial rather than entering a conviction.

  Key Takeaway

  Minor typographical errors that don't create genuine ambiguity about identity, dates, or legal requirements won't invalidate government certificates.

  If you're challenging a certificate of prohibition or suspension, focus on substantive defects — missing information, wrong statutory authority, or genuine ambiguities that could refer to different people or time periods. Don't expect courts to exclude otherwise complete certificates because of obvious typing mistakes.

  Read the decision

← All topics