Section 249(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code of Canada holds:

249(1) Every one commits an offence who operates (a) a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, havingregard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use ofthe place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount oftraffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at thatplace; (b) a vessel or any water skis, surf-board, water sled or other towed objecton or over the internal waters of Canada or the territorial sea of Canada, ina manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all thecircumstances, including the nature and condition of those waters or seaand the use that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be made of those waters or sea

The punishment for these offences is provided for by ss.249(2), (3) and (4) of theCriminal Code as follows:

(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1)(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for aterm not exceeding five years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. (3) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) and therebycauses bodily harm to any other person is guilty of an indictable offenceand is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years. (4) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) and therebycauses the death of any other person is guilty of an indictable offence andis liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

The case law generally describes dangerous driving as follows (R v. Hundal, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867 (S.C.C.)

“It follows then that a trier of fact may convict if satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that, viewed objectively, the accused was, in the words of the section, driving in a manner that was ‘dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of such place and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be on such place’. In making the assessment, the trier of fact should be satisfied that the conduct amounted to a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the accused’s situation.” A restatement of the elements of the above noted legal principle was provided in

In cases, involving bodily harm and death, the Crown is required to prove the necessary linkage between the act of dangerous driving the resulting cause of harm or death.

R v. Beatty, 2008 SCC 5. In that case, the Supreme Court of Canada placed a greater emphasis on the mental element of the dangerous driving offence and the punishment of “blameworthy conduct”. The Court in Beatty held that the assessment of whether the accused’s conduct is a “marked departure” from the norm, is not an aspect of the act required to form the offence (i.e. actusreas), but rather the mental intent (i.e. mensrea). Accordingly, an evidentiary burden does not shift to the accused from the Crown’s presentation of a case of objectively dangerous driving – (i.e the actusreus.)

At the office of J. S. Patel, Barrister, our lawyers represent a wide range of driving offences, and have established a proven record of success. Employed as former crown prosecutors who specialized in criminal driving prosecutions, we provide the requiste experience to effectively build adefenceagainst these serious charges. Our lawyers have handled dangerous driving cases involving: For a free initial consultation contactJ.S. Patel, Barrister at 403-585-1960 or 1-888-695-2211, if you have been charged with dangerous driving.