In R. v. Cady (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal characterized 'wilful blindness':
[9] The doctrine of wilful blindness “imputes knowledge to an accused whose suspicion is aroused to the point where he or she sees the need for further inquiries, but deliberately choses not to make those inquiries”: R. v. Briscoe, 2010 SCC 13, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 411, at para. 21 (emphasis in original). It was open to the trial judge to conclude that the appellant knew inquiries should be made but chose not to do so.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
