Dangerous Driving

Section 320.13 of the Criminal Code of Canada addresses the offence of Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle. This is a hybrid offence, meaning the Crown has discretion in how to proceed—it may choose to prosecute the offence either summarily or by indictment. 

Typically, the Crown proceeds by indictment in more serious cases—particularly when seeking a custodial sentence of more than two years, or when the alleged offence occurred more than one year before charges were laid. Cases involving bodily harm or other aggravating factors often lead the Crown to pursue indictment due to the seriousness of the conduct. 

However, when the offence involves dangerous operation causing death under Section 320.13, it is classified as straight indictable. This means the Crown must proceed by indictment and cannot elect to proceed summarily. 

When the Crown proceeds by indictment, the accused has the right to choose the mode of trial—this is referred to as the defence election. The available trial options and the implications of each will be discussed in a separate article.

Section 320. 13 of the Criminal Code of Canda is reproduced below –

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 bodily harm 

(2) 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 bodily harm to another person. 

Operation causing death 

Dangerous Operation 

Section 320.13 (1) – An individual commits an offence if they operate a conveyance in a manner that is dangerous to the public, considering all relevant circumstances. 

Operation Causing Bodily Harm 

Section 320.13 (2) – An individual commits an offence if they operate a conveyance dangerously, taking all circumstances into account, and their conduct results in bodily harm to another person. 

Operation Causing Death  

Section 320.13 (3) – An individual commits an offence if they operate a conveyance dangerously, considering all circumstances, and their conduct causes the death of another person. 

The actus reus of the offence involves a judicial determination that, in light of all circumstances—such as weather, speed, and road conditions—the manner in which the conveyance was operated posed a danger to the public. 

In R. v. Hundal, [1993] CanLII 120, the court held that in order to convict an individual of dangerous driving, the trier of fact must be satisfied that the accused’s conduct constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in similar circumstances. 

In criminal law, the driver’s mental state is relevant because punishing an innocent individual contradicts the core principles of justice. Therefore, the degree of negligence becomes the key consideration. Criminal liability must rest on conduct that is sufficiently blameworthy to justify punishment. 

To that end, the objective standard—adapted for the criminal context—requires proof that the conduct represented a marked departure from what a reasonable person would do in the same situation. Only when this threshold is met does the conduct exhibit the necessary mens rea to support a criminal conviction for dangerous driving. 

The accused may raise personal circumstances as a complete defence to the charge, such as suffering a medical event (e.g., a seizure) or falling asleep at the wheel. The accused is not required to prove the defence but only to raise a reasonable doubt. If there is a plausible version of events consistent with innocence, the court must consider it in determining whether the Crown has proven the offence beyond a reasonable doubt (R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33). 

The court must avoid drawing conclusions about the manner of driving solely from the outcome of the incident. A proper and thorough examination of the actual manner of driving is essential. Driving may be deemed dangerous when it poses a genuine risk to public safety. What matters is the risk of harm created by the driving behavior—not the fact that an accident occurred afterward. 

In assessing whether the driving was dangerous, it is important to recognize that driving is inherently risky, yet it remains a lawful and socially necessary activity (R. v. Beatty, paras. 31 and 34). Accidents that result from these inherent risks should not, in themselves, lead to criminal convictions. 

Generally, an accident caused by mere carelessness does not constitute a criminal offence. Even the most skilled and responsible drivers can occasionally make an error in judgment. While such conduct may give rise to civil liability, it typically does not meet the threshold for criminal culpability.