Section 249 of the Criminal Code provides for the offense of dangerous driving, but what is dangerous driving in reality? Essentially, dangerous driving is defined as operating a motor vehicle in a way that is dangerous to the public. There is also a violation of the Highway Safety Code provided for in section 327 of the Highway Safety Code.
Merely overtaking, driving at a speed higher or lower than the legal limit are some examples of what can constitute dangerous driving .
Art. 249 Criminal Codealso mentions two other offences, namely dangerous driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing death, offenses which are punished more severely, given the consequences.
Elements to prove
To be found guilty of dangerous driving, the Crown prosecutor will have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was driving, that he knowingly assumed control of the vehicle, and that the driving was dangerous for the public.
Vehicle control
The notion of driving essentially requires the driver to consciously have physical control of the direction of the vehicle. Thus, the fact for a person to fall asleep at the wheel and cause bodily harm to another or cause death does not constitute dangerous driving in itself since the person does not exercise conscious control over the vehicle. (R. v. Bélanger) [1]
In addition, the fact of having had an illness while driving constitutes a means of defense against a charge of dangerous driving. Thus, a relevant explanation of the actions of the accused in the context of well-prepared testimony can succeed in raising a reasonable doubt in the mind of a judge and lead to an acquittal.
Be careful, charges of dangerous driving are not reserved only for drivers…
However, it is important to note that it is not because the person is not seated in the driver’s seat that he cannot be charged . of this offence. A momentary check of the vehicle may suffice. A simple gesture from someone sitting on the passenger side can be enough to lay charges of dangerous driving against them. As such, a person being a passenger who takes hold of the steering wheel to swerve the vehicle may be charged with dangerous driving. (R. v. Bélanger) [2]
Dangerous nature of driving
Once control of the vehicle has been proven, it remains to be shown that this conduct was dangerous to the public or was likely to create a danger. It must therefore be understood that even if there was no real danger, the simple fact that in other circumstances there would have been danger can establish the dangerous nature of the driving. This criterion is therefore analyzed according to the way the driver drives.
Determining the dangerousness of driving is essentially a question of facts. The time of day, the state of the roadway, the climatic conditions, the presumed or actual traffic density on the premises, the visibility will all be components that will enter into the study of the character of dangerousness. (R. v. DeGoey) [3]
Objective analysis of the behavior of the accused
Finally, the driver’s behavior will be evaluated objectively, which means that the benchmark for analysis is the reasonable and prudent person. It must be determined whether the behavior of the accused constitutes a marked departure from the behavior that a reasonable person would have exhibited in the same circumstances. A moment of inattention will not qualify as objectively dangerous behavior.
Error of fact
A reasonable mistake of fact can be a defense if the accused can demonstrate that he believed, which must be reasonable, that his actions met the required standard of care. (R. v. Beatty) [4] This defense rests entirely on a question of the credibility of the testimony. Essentially, the judge must be persuaded that the accused’s belief was reasonable in the circumstances.
Sentence
At the sentencing level, a charge of dangerous driving can be prosecuted by indictment or summarily, which in the latter case means a less severe sentence. The choice of mode of prosecution is reserved for the Crown prosecutor who authorizes the complaint.
- If the person is prosecuted by way of indictment, the maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment.
- If the person is prosecuted by summary conviction, the maximum penalty is 6 months imprisonment or a maximum fine of $5,000.
In both cases, conditional imprisonment, that is, in the community, is a possibility. The court may also attach to the sentence a driving prohibition period, the duration of which it determines. (s. 259(2) Criminal Code)
Consequences at the SAAQ level
At the level of the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ) The license is automatically suspended for a period of one year for the first offence. [5] Unlike the case of an impaired driving conviction, no device or restricted license is granted during this period.
Dangerous driving causing injury or death
With respect to the offense of dangerous driving causing injury or death, the consequences of an accident alone are insufficient to prove the offence. It cannot be said that since an accident had serious consequences, the driving preceding this accident was necessarily dangerous. The burden of proof as to dangerousness remains. (R. v. Manty) [6]
Link between dangerous driving, injury or death
To be found guilty of one of these offenses, the Crown prosecutor will have to prove the dangerous driving, but also the link between this driving and the bodily harm or death. The conduct of the accused must have contributed in a more than minor way to the bodily harm or death of the victim. That is, the crown must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a link between the dangerous driving and the bodily harm or death.
In these cases, the cross-examination of Crown witnesses becomes essential to be able to raise doubt as to the causal link. If other factors can be considered and it is concluded that more than one factor could have contributed to the injury or death and therefore the connection cannot be proven, then the charge will be reduced to a charge of simple dangerous driving.
In the absence of proof of the causal link, the judge, when determining the sentence, cannot use the presence of bodily harm or death to establish the sentence since the Crown will not have fulfilled its burden of proof on this point.
Sentence
In cases of dangerous driving causing bodily harm or death, prosecution is always by way of indictment.
- In the case of bodily harm, the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment.
- In the case of death, the maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment.
In either case, given the seriousness of the consequences, imprisonment in the community is not an option.
As in the case of simple dangerous driving, the court can accompany the sentence with a prohibition from driving for a period that it determines. (Art. 259(2) Criminal Code)
Consequences at the SAAQ level
The same process as for simple dangerous driving applies at the SAAQ level[7]
Dangerous driving and drunk driving
You may think that driving while intoxicated automatically constitutes dangerous driving when it is not. A person may be charged with dangerous driving and impaired driving. However, these two offenses are distinct from each other.
For example, the fact that a person is driving while impaired by alcohol and being involved in an accident does not in all cases lead to the conclusion that there is dangerous driving.
Once again, an objective analysis must be made of the way the driver drives and not of his physical condition at the time of driving.
If the proof of all the elements included in article 249 of the Criminal Code are not proven, then there will be an acquittal .
As you can see, being charged with dangerous driving can have serious consequences. Before entering a guilty plea, it is essential to consult a lawyer who will be able to help you prepare a defense that will reduce the impact of this accusation on your life. A simple call could change your life. (514) AVO-CATE
[1] (1970) SCR 567
Text: Avocat Laval
Articles relating to the subject
L’Honorable juge Valmont Beaulieu a déclaré inconstitutionnel la conjugaison des articles 742.1 et 752 du Code criminel. Voici ses conclusions. Un excellent jugement à lire absolument.
« [499] POUR TOUS CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL :
[500] DÉCLARE que les articles 742.1 et 752 C.cr., lus conjointement, violent les articles 7 et 9 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés en empiétant excessivement et déraisonnablement sur le pouvoir discrétionnaire des tribunaux.
[501] DÉCLARE que la conjugaison des articles 742.1 et 752 C.cr. viole l’article 12 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés et sont déclarés inconstitutionnels dans une telle situation et en conséquence deviennent inopérants.
[502] DÉCLARE que la conjugaison des articles 742.1 et 752 C.cr. viole les articles 7, 9 et 12 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés en empiétant excessivement et déraisonnablement sur le pouvoir discrétionnaire des tribunaux et obligeant ces derniers à prononcer une peine exagérément disproportionnée et par conséquent, sont déclarés inconstitutionnels dans une telle situation et deviennent en conséquence inopérants.
[503] POUR LES MOTIFS déjà expliqués à la présente décision, le Tribunal CONDAMNE Kevin Perry à purger une peine de 10 mois de détention sur le 1er chef et de deux ans moins un jour de détention sur le 2e chef, à être purgée au sein de la collectivité aux conditions suivantes » (…)
Référence : R. c. Perry [2011] J.Q. no 4496 (jugement porté en appel[2011] J.Q. no 4496)
Merci pour ces précisions très utiles.
Concernant la conduite dangereuse, n’importe qui peu vous accuser de conduite dangereuse en relevant votre # de plaque et en portant plainte. C’est dont je dois me défendre en cour présentement, pour un dépassement sur une double mais dans un droit, pas temps clair et sur une chaussée sèche. Il s’agit qu’on vous prenne en video ou autre et voilà, les policiers débarquent chez vous et c’est la déposition et le « vous avez droit à votre avocat…» Pourtant, rouler sur la Métroplitaine à 110 ou 120 km ( max 70 km) et personne ne vous accusera ( ou presque )
et les policiers n’y interviennent à peu près jamais. Ce concept est libre à l’interprétation du juge à ce que je comprends, car la notion est trèèèèèèèèèèèès large.
Merci Daniel Beaudoin Montréal
Cher monsieur Beaudoin,
Je ne connais pas votre dossier mais effectivement il est possible que la seule preuve disponible soit la parole d’une personne. Il est important de savoir que si vous décidiez de plaider coupable à l’infraction il y aura une interdiction de conduire d’au moins 1 ans en plus de la sentence. (voir la preuve de votre identification) Merci de votre commentaire. Salutations Me Julie Couture
Sur un autre point du code de la route, est-ce qu’un dépassement sur une ligne double d’un conducteur ayant une conduite erratique, voir dangereuse, (accélération sans aucune raisons apparentes, ralentissements, conduite en zig-zag comme si la personne était au cell ) peut-être une défense contre une contravention à cet effet.
En fait les accusations de conduite dangereuse sur la foie de la déposition par le conducteur doublé, après ma déposition aux policiers, furent abandonnées et ont résulté en une contravention pour dépassement sur une ligne double que je désire contester.Y-a-t-il des cas ou le dépassement sur une ligne double peut-être plaidé avce succès ?? ( un agent de la SQ m’a dit que oui )
Merci Daniel Beaudoin
Bonne réflexion
victime d’accident de la route, ramassée en plein passage piéton. Le policier ne m’a posé aucune question , je sors de là triple fracture de ma jambe droite jusque là je ne sais toujours pas qu’est ce qui s’est réellement passé. je veux vérifier si il y a eu réellement eu conduite dangereuse de la madame de 84 ans qui était au volant . je veux savoir comment m’y prendre.