Federal Driving Offences (13:X) - Revision history

LSLAP at 19:25, 13 October 2025

2025-10-13T19:25:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:25, 13 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~August 14, 2024~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= 30 July 2025}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}

LSLAP: /* A. Dangerous Operation */

2025-09-28T23:57:23Z

A. Dangerous Operation

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:57, 28 September 2025
Line 22:		Line 22:
	Dangerous operation (s 320.13) is included in the offences created under ''Criminal Code'' ss 220 (causing death by criminal negligence), 221 (causing bodily harm by criminal negligence), and 236 (manslaughter). If there is not enough evidence to prove one of the three offences above, it is still possible to convict of dangerous operation s 320.13 (1) (''Criminal Code'' s 662(5)).		Dangerous operation (s 320.13) is included in the offences created under ''Criminal Code'' ss 220 (causing death by criminal negligence), 221 (causing bodily harm by criminal negligence), and 236 (manslaughter). If there is not enough evidence to prove one of the three offences above, it is still possible to convict of dangerous operation s 320.13 (1) (''Criminal Code'' s 662(5)).

	In [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2020/2020scc8/2020scc8.html ''R v. Chung'', 2020 SCC 8], the Supreme Court upheld a conviction of dangerous driving causing death. The court decided that even momentary excessive speeding can be sufficient to meet the required mens rea (state of mind) for dangerous driving. The test to be applied is whether a reasonable person would have foreseen the danger of the momentary conduct. Chung demonstrates that in certain contexts, momentary acts can still result in a criminal conviction.		In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2020/2020scc8/2020scc8.html R v. Chung]'', 2020 SCC 8, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction of dangerous driving causing death. The court decided that even momentary excessive speeding can be sufficient to meet the required mens rea (state of mind) for dangerous driving. The test to be applied is whether a reasonable person would have foreseen the danger of the momentary conduct. Chung demonstrates that in certain contexts, momentary acts can still result in a criminal conviction.

	== B. Operation While Prohibited ==		== B. Operation While Prohibited ==

LSLAP at 21:02, 21 August 2024

2024-08-21T21:02:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:02, 21 August 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~July 1~~, ~~2023~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= August 14, 2024}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}

LSLAP at 18:42, 8 August 2023

2023-08-08T18:42:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:42, 8 August 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= July 4, ~~2022~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= July 1, 2023}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}

Line 10:		Line 10:
	Dangerous operation causing bodily harm (s 320.13 (2)) is also a hybrid offence. On indictment, the individual is liable to imprisonment for a term not more than 14 years (s 320.2 (a)) The minimum punishment is (s 320.2 (b)):		Dangerous operation causing bodily harm (s 320.13 (2)) is also a hybrid offence. On indictment, the individual is liable to imprisonment for a term not more than 14 years (s 320.2 (a)) The minimum punishment is (s 320.2 (b)):

	:(i) ~~for~~ a first offence, a fine of $1,000,		:(i) For a first offence, a fine of $1,000,

	:(ii) ~~for~~ a second offence, imprisonment for a term of 30 days,		:(ii) For a second offence, imprisonment for a term of 30 days,

	:(iii) ~~for~~ each subsequent offence, imprisonment for a term of 120 days.		:(iii) For each subsequent offence, imprisonment for a term of 120 days.

	On summary conviction, the individual is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to a term of imprisonment no longer than 2 years less a day, or both. The minimum punishments for convictions on indictment also apply to summary convictions.		On summary conviction, the individual is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to a term of imprisonment no longer than 2 years less a day, or both. The minimum punishments for convictions on indictment also apply to summary convictions.

Clicklaw Editor: /* D. Limitation Period */

2022-09-20T19:06:29Z

D. Limitation Period

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:06, 20 September 2022
Line 45:		Line 45:

	Section 786(2) of the ''Criminal Code'' states that, with respect to summary offences, “[n]o proceedings shall be instituted more than '''six months''' after the time when the subject-matter of the proceedings arose”. In contrast, '''there is no limitation period for indictable offences'''.		Section 786(2) of the ''Criminal Code'' states that, with respect to summary offences, “[n]o proceedings shall be instituted more than '''six months''' after the time when the subject-matter of the proceedings arose”. In contrast, '''there is no limitation period for indictable offences'''.


	{{LSLAP Manual Navbox\|type=chapters8-14}}		{{LSLAP Manual Navbox\|type=chapters8-14}}

Clicklaw Editor: /* C. Criminal Negligence */

2022-09-20T19:06:03Z

C. Criminal Negligence

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:06, 20 September 2022
Line 40:		Line 40:
	In ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1vrp5 R v Beatty]'', [2008] 1 S.C.R. 49, 2008 SCC 5, the Court addressed the issue of criminal negligence in the context of dangerous driving. Unlike ''Creighton'', there is no substantive dissent, though five of the newer Supreme Court justices took a slightly different approach to the modified objective test. They noted that the actual (subjective) state of mind of the accused at the time of the accident is relevant in determining if there was a marked departure from the standard of the reasonable person. In Beatty, a momentary lapse of attention with no other evidence of dangerous driving was held '''not''' sufficient to warrant criminal sanction under s 249 (criminal negligence causing death).		In ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1vrp5 R v Beatty]'', [2008] 1 S.C.R. 49, 2008 SCC 5, the Court addressed the issue of criminal negligence in the context of dangerous driving. Unlike ''Creighton'', there is no substantive dissent, though five of the newer Supreme Court justices took a slightly different approach to the modified objective test. They noted that the actual (subjective) state of mind of the accused at the time of the accident is relevant in determining if there was a marked departure from the standard of the reasonable person. In Beatty, a momentary lapse of attention with no other evidence of dangerous driving was held '''not''' sufficient to warrant criminal sanction under s 249 (criminal negligence causing death).

	If ~~the~~ negligence results in death, an indictable offence has been committed and the driver may be liable to life imprisonment (s 220). If the negligence results in bodily injury, an indictable offence has been committed and the driver may be liable to imprisonment for 10 years (s 221).		If negligence results in death, an indictable offence has been committed and the driver may be liable to life imprisonment (s 220). If the negligence results in bodily injury, an indictable offence has been committed and the driver may be liable to imprisonment for 10 years (s 221).

	== D. Limitation Period ==		== D. Limitation Period ==

Clicklaw Editor: /* C. Criminal Negligence */

2022-09-20T19:04:28Z

C. Criminal Negligence

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:04, 20 September 2022
Line 36:		Line 36:
	== C. Criminal Negligence ==		== C. Criminal Negligence ==

	This section is not specifically aimed at motor vehicle operators, but is applicable in some circumstances. Under the ''Criminal Code'', criminal negligence involves acts or omissions showing “wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons” (s 219). In Canada, the law surrounding the ''mens rea'' requirements for criminal negligence was clarified in ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1fs09 R v Creighton]'', [1993], ~~SCJ No 91~~. The standard is to be measured by a modified objective test: whether the accused’s conduct constituted a marked departure from that of the reasonable person given all the circumstances. Characteristics personal to the accused will not be considered with the exception of accused’s incapacity to appreciate the nature of the risks associated with their actions.		This section is not specifically aimed at motor vehicle operators, but is applicable in some circumstances. Under the ''Criminal Code'', criminal negligence involves acts or omissions showing “wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons” (s 219). In Canada, the law surrounding the ''mens rea'' requirements for criminal negligence was clarified in ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1fs09 R v Creighton]'', [1993], 3 S.C.R. 3. The standard is to be measured by a modified objective test: whether the accused’s conduct constituted a marked departure from that of the reasonable person given all the circumstances. Characteristics personal to the accused will not be considered with the exception of accused’s incapacity to appreciate the nature of the risks associated with their actions.

	In ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1vrp5 R v Beatty]'', 2008 ~~SCC 5~~, [2008~~] SCJ No~~ 5, the Court addressed the issue of criminal negligence in the context of dangerous driving. Unlike ''Creighton'', there is no substantive dissent, though five of the newer Supreme Court justices took a slightly different approach to the modified objective test. They noted that the actual (subjective) state of mind of the accused at the time of the accident is relevant in determining if there was a marked departure from the standard of the reasonable person. In Beatty, a momentary lapse of attention with no other evidence of dangerous driving was held '''not''' sufficient to warrant criminal sanction under s 249 (criminal negligence causing death).		In ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1vrp5 R v Beatty]'', [2008] 1 S.C.R. 49, 2008 SCC 5, the Court addressed the issue of criminal negligence in the context of dangerous driving. Unlike ''Creighton'', there is no substantive dissent, though five of the newer Supreme Court justices took a slightly different approach to the modified objective test. They noted that the actual (subjective) state of mind of the accused at the time of the accident is relevant in determining if there was a marked departure from the standard of the reasonable person. In Beatty, a momentary lapse of attention with no other evidence of dangerous driving was held '''not''' sufficient to warrant criminal sanction under s 249 (criminal negligence causing death).

	If the negligence results in death, an indictable offence has been committed and the driver may be liable to life imprisonment (s 220). If the negligence results in bodily injury, an indictable offence has been committed and the driver may be liable to imprisonment for 10 years (s 221).		If the negligence results in death, an indictable offence has been committed and the driver may be liable to life imprisonment (s 220). If the negligence results in bodily injury, an indictable offence has been committed and the driver may be liable to imprisonment for 10 years (s 221).

Clicklaw Editor: /* A. Dangerous Operation */

2022-09-20T19:00:21Z

A. Dangerous Operation

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:00, 20 September 2022
Line 10:		Line 10:
	Dangerous operation causing bodily harm (s 320.13 (2)) is also a hybrid offence. On indictment, the individual is liable to imprisonment for a term not more than 14 years (s 320.2 (a)) The minimum punishment is (s 320.2 (b)):		Dangerous operation causing bodily harm (s 320.13 (2)) is also a hybrid offence. On indictment, the individual is liable to imprisonment for a term not more than 14 years (s 320.2 (a)) The minimum punishment is (s 320.2 (b)):

	* (i) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000,		:(i) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000,

	* (ii) for a second offence, imprisonment for a term of 30 days,		:(ii) for a second offence, imprisonment for a term of 30 days,

	* (iii) for each subsequent offence, imprisonment for a term of 120 days.		:(iii) for each subsequent offence, imprisonment for a term of 120 days.

	On summary conviction, the individual is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to a term of imprisonment no longer than 2 years less a day, or both. The minimum punishments for convictions on indictment also apply to summary convictions.		On summary conviction, the individual is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to a term of imprisonment no longer than 2 years less a day, or both. The minimum punishments for convictions on indictment also apply to summary convictions.

LSLAP at 22:14, 23 August 2022

2022-08-23T22:14:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:14, 23 August 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~June 30~~, ~~2021~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= July 4, 2022}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}

LSLAP: /* B. Operation While Prohibited */

2021-08-10T08:06:06Z

B. Operation While Prohibited

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:06, 10 August 2021
Line 33:		Line 33:
	a) if convicted on indictment, a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years		a) if convicted on indictment, a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years
	b) on summary conviction, a term of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years less a day.		b) on summary conviction, a term of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years less a day.


	== C. Criminal Negligence ==		== C. Criminal Negligence ==