Dangerous driving: Everything You Need to Know

The Criminal Code of Canada prohibits driving that poses a danger to the public. The reason for this is simple: Engaging in risky behaviour while driving increases your chance of being in a fatal or serious injury collision. Some behaviours that are considered dangerous to the public include: excessive speeding, stunting, street racing, running red lights, and driving while impaired.

The Criminal Code defines dangerous driving as follows:

Dangerous operation

320.13 (1) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public.

Operation causing death

(3) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public and, as a result, causes the death of another person.

It is important to highlight that simple carelessness that even the most prudent drivers may be guilty of, is not criminal. This begs the question: What makes driving dangerous and worth of criminal conviction versus simply being careless on the road.

The Courts in Canada have held that for driving to be criminally dangerous there must be a marked departure from the standard of driving expected of a reasonable person, objectively measured. Momentary mistakes and lapses in attention, even where such mistakes result in serious injury or death, may give rise to civil liability, but they will usually not amount to criminal conduct.

Determining whether certain driving at issue constitutes a marked departure is a complex task for a judge hearing a dangerous driving case. The judge must consider accused’s actual state of mind at the time and determine whether a reasonable person in the accused’s position would have been aware of the risk created by his driving. A judge must also consider the external traffic conditions at the time such as the accused’s speed of travel, the nature of the road, the weather conditions. Different circumstances lead to different outcomes as can be shown below:

• In an Ontario case known as R v Gomes, the Court decided that a driver of a vehicle who approaches the crest of a hill on the wrong side of the road, in circumstances where he cannot see if oncoming traffic is approaching, commits the offence of dangerous driving, whether the traffic is there or whether it might simply be reasonably expected to be there. There was no need for a collision to have taken place.
• The outcome was different in the Yukon case of R v Kleberc. In that case, the accused was an experienced bus driver saw the victim crossing the road one block before hitting her, but instead of coming to a full stop, or even braking, he took his foot off the gas and did not brake until the last second. The victim stopped 90 per cent of the way across the road and was struck by the front passenger side of the accused’s vehicle. The accused was acquitted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm. While he made a serious error in judgment by anticipating that the victim would cross the street in a predictable fashion, his driving did not constitute a marked departure from the standard of conduct of a reasonably prudent driver in all the circumstances.
• In the Alberta case of R v Watson, the accused drank three or four alcoholic beverages and drove a high-performance sports car above the speed limit, at night, on a wet road, in a residential area with which he was exceedingly familiar. There were no pedestrians and no other traffic on the road except for a single van, which passed early on in the driving pattern. The accused was acquitted of dangerous driving. While his driving was careless, the Crown had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he drove in a manner that was dangerous to the public.

If dangerous driving is associated with injury or death, a judge must consider whether the driver and his/her actions actually caused those injuries. The focus of legal causation is whether the accused should be held legally responsible for the consequences of his actions, or whether holding the accused responsible for the death would amount to punishing a moral innocent. A person should not be held responsible where an unforeseeable act breaks or ruptures the chain of causation. Similarly, a person should not be held responsible for the intentional acts of another person

In the Ontario case of R v Tyrer, the accused was charged with dangerous driving causing death. It was undisputed that the accused and the deceased were found to have been racing. However, the accused testified that he decided to slow down upon seeing impending gravel, and that deceased Greenhill suddenly crossed his path just prior to the deceased losing control of his vehicle. The Court found that either one of these points of evidence could establish an intervening event breaking the link of causation. The Court entered a not guilty verdict on dangerous driving causing death but convicted the accused of the included offence of dangerous driving.

Overall, dangerous driving is a complex area of criminal law and it is important to hire a lawyer who understands the law of dangerous driving and can assess possible defences. The penalties for dangerous driving can be severe. They can include:

• lifelong criminal record
• mandatory driving license suspension
• imprisonment
• a fine
• Demerit points on the driver’s license
• criminal probation
• increased insurance premiums

A criminal lawyer can also negotiate with the prosecution to resolve the case in a way that minimizes the penalties you may face. By way of example, if the Crown agrees to reduce a charge of dangerous driving to careless driving, you can avoid a criminal record a mandatory driver’s license suspension.

If you have any questions about dangerous driving charges please contact Yoav Niv for a free consultation.