Is wilful blindness sufficient to establish that a person was wilfully blind as to whether the other person was underage?

Further, where a person knows something, then for legal purposes they necessarily believe it: United States of America v. Dynar, 1997 CanLII 359 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 462, at para. 69. If wilful blindness is sufficient to establish knowledge, then it follows logically that wilful blindness can stand in for belief as well. Therefore, if the trier of fact is satisfied that the accused was wilfully blind as to whether the other person was underage, then the trier of fact will necessarily be satisfied that the accused believed the other person was underage.