Wilful blindness requires subjective suspicions

R. v. Stanton, 2014 ONCA 29:

[10]       The authorities are clear that wilful blindness requires subjective suspicions. The trial judge seems to have adopted a statement from defence counsel's closing submissions to the effect that the respondent "was not wilfully blind because he did not know, or ought he to have known that he struck a cyclist" (emphasis added). However, given her acquittal of the respondent, any error of law in this respect did not affect the result: see R. v. Rudge, 2011 ONCA 791, 108 O.R. (3d) 161, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2012] S.C.C.A. No. 64, at para. 36.