Representing Clients With Various Driving Offences

Our ServiceOur Service

Speeding, Careless Driving, Stunt Driving, Racing...

Redline provides some of the most effective defence representation available in Ontario – period. Speeding, Stunt Driving, Racing, Careless Driving Accidents, Fail to Remain at the Scene of an Accident, Operate Motor Vehicle Without Insurance and Drive While Under Suspension are common charges with serious consequences for the driver who is unfortunate enough to be convicted. However, Redline is the best-reviewed paralegal firm on the web – and we offer a free consultation.

Call us now to discuss the charges you are facing, the potential penalties and the defence strategy that will work best for you.

Redline is Ontario's premier paralegal firm for contested Highway Traffic Act matters.

Advanced Traffic Ticket Defence Strategies

Call us for representation at (416) 534-0111; we specialize in motor vehicle collisions, technical trials and other complex cases. No case is too big or small. And don't forget, the planning process starts well prior to the court appearance so if you have been charged with a motor vehicle related offence, Contact us for a free consultation.

Careless Driving Ontario – Commentary

A cautionary note from Redline to those facing a Careless Driving charge in Ontario: There is a troubling but long-standing practice in Ontario to 'over-charge' where the police officer is unsure of the driver's wrongful act. For instance, where a car accident investigation points to the driver making an unsafe lane change, or perhaps running a red light, the police officer may instead lay the far more serious charge of Careless Driving. (Careless Driving can lead to a six-month jail term and a two year drivers' license suspension)

The reasons for this vary, but generally speaking the broad circumstances that are caught by the Careless Driving definition allow it to be laid even where a more appropriate charge exists in the Highway Traffic Act.

The result is that many defendants who decide to fight the Careless Driving allegation end up pleading guilty to the lesser offence that should have been laid in the first place. The predicament causes the driver to forgo his right to challenge the case. And it's not just unrepresented defendants that are caught in this trap... Let Redline navigate these legal waters for you.

We see this all the time in the courts! Being convicted of any offence arising from a motor vehicle collision can have a compounding effect on your insurability and civil liability. We specialize in Careless Driving litigation – Call us first!

It is a common mistake to conclude that because the circumstances that may amount to Careless Driving are broad, that the legal definition of Careless Driving is also broad. This is untrue. The legal definition of Careless Driving sets out a precise description of conduct that will attract a conviction when applying the legal test for Careless Driving.

Careless Driving Ontario - Definition

Careless Driving Ontario - Penalties

Careless Driving Defences and Classification

Careless Driving is a Strict Liability Offence in accordance with the Supreme Court of Canada's classification of regulatory offences in R. v. Sault Ste. Marie. The defences available on a charge of Careless Driving may be gleaned from the leading precedents. One of which, R. v. Beauchamp sets out the test for Careless Driving this way: "It must also be borne in mind that the test, where an accident has occurred, is not whether, if the accused had used greater care or skill, the accident would not have happened. It is whether it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that this accused, in the light of existing circumstances of which he was aware or of which a driver exercising ordinary care should have been aware, failed to use the care and attention or to give to other persons using the highway the consideration that a driver of ordinary care would have used or given in the circumstances. The use of the term "due care", which means care owing in the circumstances, makes it quite clear that, while the legal standard of care remains the same in the sense that it is what the average careful man would have done in like circumstances, the factual standard is a constantly shifting one, depending on road, visibility, weather conditions, traffic conditions that exist or may reasonably be expected, and any other conditions that ordinary prudent driver would take into consideration. It is a question of fact,depending on the circumstances in each case."

Useful Information and Things You Should Know About Careless Driving

Careless Driving is an anomaly among other strict liability offences. Generally, a strict liability case will place the onus upon the defendant to establish on a balance of probabilities that he exercised all reasonable care owing under the circumstances. Careless Driving is unique in that the actus reus or 'guilty act' contemplated by the legislation is essentially the inverse – that the driver 'failed to exercise all reasonable care'. In other words, the elements that form the allegation of Careless Driving are the exact opposite of the elements in the defence available in the strict liability doctrine. It follows then to escape conviction the defendant would need only raise a reasonable doubt that he 'failed to exercise all reasonable care owing under the circumstances', as opposed to meeting the higher legal threshold of establishing on a balance of probabilities that he exercised all reasonable care to be acquitted. This notion is not reflected in the pre-Charter caselaw such as Beauchamp, noted above.

Misconceptions and 'Internet Myths' about Careless Driving

- Is Careless Driving a Criminal Offence?

No it isn't. It is a Provincial Offence created under sec. 130 of the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario.

- Is this true? I read it on a paralegal's website:

"By personally appearing in traffic court the defendant, (person who is charged with the traffic ticket) provides the "who" also known as the "identity evidence". All the prosecutor has to do is ask the witness who came to testify against you, or police officer, "who caused the accident" whereupon the witness would point at the defendant (person who got the ticket), completing the "identity evidence". By appearing in traffic court sometimes the defendant actually helps to convict himself!"

No it isn't true – and if it were, everyone charged with Careless Driving would need a representative and the paralegal would be rich. In fairness though, we've heard this misconception before. It's something police officers are taught. Below is a proper statement of the law from the Supreme Court of Canada's unanimous decison in R. v. Reitsma, 125 C.C.C. (3d) 1:

"The identification of an accused person for the first time "in the dock" is generally regarded as having little weight. In a dock identification the witness is obviously not required to pick out the person whom he claims to have seen from among a number of other persons of similar age and size and general physical appearance. In a courtroom identification there is also the danger of the witness anticipating that the offender will be present. That danger is accentuated when an accused is readily identifiable in the courtroom as the person accused of the crime. Identification of an accused for the first time in the dock is analogous to a police "show up" in which the only person shown to the identifying witness is the suspect, and for that reason it is open to the same criticism. Generally, anything which tends to convey to a witness that a person is suspected by the police or is charged with the offence has the effect of reducing or destroying the value of the identification evidence"

And you may also read this Redline Case Study which demonstrates the principle.

- I read this on a paralegal's website too...So, I have nothing to worry about, right? My Careless Driving charge will definitely be reduced?

"If we cannot have the charge dropped completely we will ensure that the ticket is dropped to save your demerit points, any license suspension and to have any fine reduced to its lowest."

That's just plain wrong. No one can ensure such a thing. This is an example of a case, like many others, where the prosecution refused to agree to any reduction in the charge whatsoever.

- I was charged with Careless Driving. I read the following on the internet. Is it true?

"If you receive a traffic ticket its only the officers "opinion" that you are at fault in the accident."

Three for three. Here is an excerpt from the governing legislation:

Rules When a Driver is Charged with a Driving Offence

20. (1) For the purposes of this Regulation, a driver is considered to be charged with a driving offence,

(a) if, as a result of the incident, the driver is charged with operating the automobile while his or her ability to operate the automobile was impaired by alcohol or a drug;
(b) if, as a result of the incident, the driver is charged with driving while his or her blood alcohol level exceeded the limits permitted by law;
(c) if, as a result of the incident, the driver is charged with an indictable offence related to the operation of the automobile;
(d) if the driver, as a result of the incident, is asked to provide a breath sample and he or she is charged with failing or refusing to provide the sample;
(e) if, as a result of the incident, the driver is charged with exceeding the speed limit by sixteen or more kilometres per hour. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668, s. 20 (1).

(2) The degree of fault of the insured shall be determined in accordance with the ordinary rules of law, and not in accordance with these rules,
(a) if the driver of automobile "A" involved in the incident is charged with a driving offence; and
(b) if the driver of automobile "B" is wholly or partly at fault, as otherwise determined under these rules, for the incident. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668, s. 20 (2).

Charged with Careless Driving in Toronto, Brampton, Mississauga, Richmond Hill, Newmarket or in the GTA? Call us first!

Speeding Tickets in Ontario

A cautionary note from Redline to those fighting a Speeding Ticket in Ontario: The major police forces in Ontario, including Brampton/Mississauga (Peel Region) and Toronto use Laser and Radar speed measuring devices in issuing most Speeding tickets. The highly technical nature of these Speeding trials requires a thorough understanding of the devices used and the corresponding Ontario Speeding precedents. Any Speeding conviction – whether there are Demerit Points involved or not – may affect your insurance premiums.

Speeding is by far the most frequently laid moving violation in Ontario. Speeding is also the most frequently contested moving violation in Ontario. Defending a Speeding ticket presents itself as a significant challenge when the speed is obtained with the use of a technical device such as a Radar Gun or Laser Unit. The success of such challenges is linked directly to the technical understanding and skill-set that your representative possesses. At Redline, Speeding is one of our specialties so Call us first!

Speeding Defences and Classification in Ontario

Speeding is an Absolute Liability Offence in accordance with the Supreme Court of Canada’s classification of regulatory offences in R. v. Sault Ste. Marie. The Absolute Liability nature of Speeding severely restricts the defences that are open to the driver to advance when contesting a Speeding ticket in Ontario. For example, it is not a defence to Speeding in Ontario that you were Speeding because your speedometer was broken. Further, any other mistake of fact will not be accepted as a defence to the charge. Misreading the posted speed limit; not realizing your vehicle picked up speed going down hill or confusing the miles-per-hour indication on your speedometer with kilometres-per-hour are all examples of mistakes of fact that are not available to the defendant when fighting a Speeding ticket in Ontario.

Speeding Demerit Points in Ontario

Speeding Penalties in Ontario

The penalties for Speeding in Ontario are set out in ss. 128 (14) of the Highway Traffic Act:

Penalty
(14) Every person who contravenes this section or any by-law or regulation made under this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable, where the rate of speed at which the motor vehicle was driven,
(a) is less than 20 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, to a fine of $3 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit;
(b) is 20 kilometres per hour or more but less than 30 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, to a fine of $4.50 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit;
(c) is 30 kilometres per hour or more but less than 50 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, to a fine of $7 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit; and
(d) is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit, to a fine of $9.75 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit. 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 17 (7).

Penalty for speeding in construction zones
(14.1) Every person who contravenes this section in a construction zone designated under subsection (8) or (8.1) when there is a worker in the construction zone is liable on conviction, not to the fines set out in subsection (14), but, where the rate of speed at which the motor vehicle was driven,
(a) is less than 20 kilometres per hour over the posted speed limit, to a fine of double the fine set out in clause (14) (a) for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit;
(b) is 20 kilometres per hour or more but less than 30 kilometres per hour over the posted speed limit, to a fine of double the fine set out in clause (14) (b) for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit;
(c) is 30 kilometres per hour or more but less than 50 kilometres per hour over the posted speed limit, to a fine of double the fine set out in clause (14) (c) for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit; and
(d) is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the posted speed limit, to a fine of double the fine set out in clause (14) (d) for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit. 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 17 (8).

Suspension of licence on conviction
(15) Subject to subsection 207 (7), where a court has convicted a person for a contravention of this section and has determined that the person convicted was driving at a rate of speed of 50 or more kilometres per hour greater than the speed limit, the court may,
(a) suspend the driver's licence of the person for a period of not more than 30 days;
(b) upon the first subsequent conviction where the court determined in respect of each conviction that the person was driving at a rate of speed of 50 or more kilometres per hour greater than the speed limit, suspend the driver's licence of the person for a period of not more than 60 days;
(c) upon the second subsequent conviction or an additional subsequent conviction, where the court determined in respect of each conviction that the person was driving at a rate of speed of 50 or more kilometres per hour greater than the speed limit, suspend the driver's licence of the person for a period of not more than one year. 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 17 (9).

Speeding Definition in Ontario

Charged with Speeding in Toronto, Brampton, Mississauga, Richmond Hill, Newmarket or in the GTA? Call us first!

Stunt Driving Commentary

If you are reading this, you may have been charged under Ontario's dubious Stunt Driving or Racing law and suffered the indignity of having your drivers' license and motor vehicle seized at the side of the road – well before being found guilty of anything in a court of law. The Constitutionality of Ontario's Stunt Driving / Racing laws was considered by the Ontario Court of Appeal but notably, the road side suspension and vehicle impoundment provisions were not considered in the analysis.

We hear unending stories of people and their children hundreds of miles from home being left to fend for themselves in a remote Tim Horton's donut shop. Or being left by the police to negotiate transport with an unknown tow truck driver of questionable ilk to the nearest bus station.

Stunt Driving in Ontario is an offence created by the Ontario Highway Traffic Act. It is a quasi-criminal offence that is caught by the protections afforded by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 of the Charter protects, among other things, the 'security of the person' of Canadian citizens. That is, the right protects against significant government-inflicted harm or stress to the mental state of the individual.

Being stranded by your government in the midst of nowhere certainly meets that test, in our view. Nonetheless, the Ontario Court of Appeal specifically excluded suspension and seizure provisions of the Stunt Driving / Racing law from their analysis in R. v. Raham. Indeed, at paragraph 11 of the decision the court indicates "The respondent was required to surrender her license at the scene and her vehicle was impounded. The validity of these sanctions is not in issue in this case."

Stunt Driving Defences and Classification

What is considered to be Stunt Driving in Ontario?

Actions that may be considered to be Stunt Driving in Ontario include:

Driving at a rate of speed that is higher than 50km/hr;
Driving without care and attention to the road or without reasonable care for the safety of others on the road;
Driving without care and attention to the road or without reasonable care for the safety of others on the road;
Preventing another car from passing without reason;
Stopping or slowing your car in a manner that interferes with the movement of the cars behind you;
Completing Donuts (circular motions with your car);
Driving your car in a position that is not seated in the driver's seat;
Driving with passengers in your trunk;
Improper turns.

The legal definition of Race, Contest and Stunt Driving

Definition, "race" and "contest"
2. (1) For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, "race" and "contest" include any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:
1. Driving two or more motor vehicles at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed and in a manner that indicates the drivers of the motor vehicles are engaged in a competition.
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to chase another motor vehicle.
3. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,
i. driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed,
ii. outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed, or
iii. repeatedly changing lanes in close proximity to other vehicles so as to advance through the ordinary flow of traffic while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 2 (1).
(2) In this section,
"marked departure from the lawful rate of speed" means a rate of speed that may limit the ability of a driver of a motor vehicle to prudently adjust to changing circumstances on the highway. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 2 (2).

Definition, "stunt"
3. For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, "stunt" includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:
1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to cause some or all of its tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning.
3. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to spin it or cause it to circle, without maintaining control over it.
4. Driving two or more motor vehicles side by side or in proximity to each other, where one of the motor vehicles occupies a lane of traffic or other portion of the highway intended for use by oncoming traffic for a period of time that is longer than is reasonably required to pass another motor vehicle.
5. Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle.
6. Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the driver's seat.
7. Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit.
8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,
i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,
ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the driver's sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,
iii. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway, or
iv. making a left turn where,
(A) the driver is stopped at an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal system in response to a circular red indication;
(B) at least one vehicle facing the opposite direction is similarly stopped in response to a circular red indication; and
(C) the driver executes the left turn immediately before or after the system shows only a circular green indication in both directions and in a manner that indicates an intention to complete or attempt to complete the left turn before the vehicle facing the opposite direction is able to proceed straight through the intersection in response to the circular green indication facing that vehicle. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 3.
Exceptions
4. (1) Despite section 2, "race" and "contest" do not include,
(a) a rally, navigational rally or similar event that is conducted,
(i) under the supervision of the Canadian Association of Rally Sport,
(ii) under the supervision of a club or association approved in writing by the Ministry, or
(iii) with the written approval of the road authority or road authorities having jurisdiction over the highway or highways used;
(b) motor vehicle owners engaged in a tour, scenic drive, treasure hunt or other similar motoring event in which the participants drive responsibly and in a manner that indicates an overall intention to comply with the provisions of the Act; or
(c) an event held on a closed course with the written approval of the road authority having jurisdiction over the highway, including any event lawfully using any of the trademarks "CART", "Formula One", "Indy", "IndyCar", "IRL" or "NASCAR". O. Reg. 455/07, s. 4 (1).
(2) Despite sections 2 and 3, "race", "contest" and "stunt" do not include any activity required for the lawful operation of motor vehicles described in subsections 62 (15.1) or 128 (13) of the Act, or the lawful operation of an emergency vehicle as defined in subsection 144 (1) of the Act. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 4 (2).

Stunt Driving Guilty Pleas and Plea Bargains

At Redline, we fight Stunt Driving charges regularly. Charged with Stunt Driving in Toronto, Brampton, Mississauga, Richmond Hill, Newmarket or in the GTA? Call us first!