Vehicular Homicide And Dangerous Driving
1. Vehicular Homicide
Vehicular homicide, often prosecuted under the umbrella of Criminal Code offences, occurs when a death results from negligent or dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.
Relevant sections of the Criminal Code (Canada):
s. 249(3) – Dangerous operation causing death
s. 249.1 – Criminal negligence causing death (includes vehicle use)
s. 249(1) – Dangerous driving (injury or death optional, separate offence)
Key elements:
Operation of a vehicle – any motorized vehicle on public roads.
Dangerous driving – operation that is objectively dangerous to the public.
Causation – the driving must be the proximate cause of death.
Mens rea – objective fault; awareness not required if conduct is objectively dangerous.
Penalty:
Dangerous driving causing death: up to 14 years imprisonment
Criminal negligence causing death (vehicle-related): up to life imprisonment
Vehicular manslaughter per common law = equivalent to criminal negligence causing death.
2. Dangerous Driving
Dangerous driving is defined under s. 249(1) Criminal Code:
Operating a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to traffic, road, weather conditions, and surrounding circumstances.
Key points:
Objective standard – would a reasonable person consider the driving dangerous?
Penalties depend on injury or death:
Bodily harm: max 10 years
Death: max 14 years
Defences may include:
Sudden medical emergency
Proper road conditions and lawful conduct
Lack of causation
📚 Major Canadian Case Law on Vehicular Homicide and Dangerous Driving
1️⃣ R. v. Beatty, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 49
Area: Dangerous driving causing death
Facts
Beatty was driving at high speed and collided with another vehicle, causing death. The issue was whether his conduct met the objective standard of dangerous driving.
Legal Issue
What constitutes “dangerous driving” under s. 249? Must there be subjective awareness of risk, or is objective fault sufficient?
Decision
Supreme Court of Canada held:
Dangerous driving is an objective offence.
The accused must fall markedly below the standard of a reasonable driver in similar circumstances.
No subjective awareness of danger is required.
Importance
This case clarified the objective standard for dangerous driving and emphasized that gross deviation from normal driving suffices for criminal liability.
2️⃣ R. v. Tutton, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1399
Area: Criminal negligence causing death
Facts
Tutton allowed his infant son to go into diabetic shock and delayed seeking medical attention. The child died. While not vehicular in origin, the principles of criminal negligence apply broadly, including vehicular homicide.
Legal Issue
What constitutes criminal negligence under s. 220 of the Criminal Code?
Decision
Supreme Court of Canada ruled:
Criminal negligence requires marked and substantial departure from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe.
Mens rea is objective, not subjective.
Importance
This is foundational for vehicular homicide cases involving criminal negligence (e.g., excessive speed, reckless operation causing death).
3️⃣ R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944
Area: Dangerous driving causing bodily harm or death
Facts
DeSousa drove aggressively through a residential area, hitting a pedestrian and causing death. He argued he did not intend harm.
Legal Issue
Does “dangerous driving” require intent or only an objectively dangerous act?
Decision
Supreme Court:
Dangerous driving is strictly objective.
Intent to cause harm is irrelevant; the focus is on whether a reasonable person would foresee risk.
Sentencing should reflect degree of deviation from expected conduct.
Importance
Reinforced that vehicular homicide and dangerous driving are offences of objective fault, aligning dangerous driving liability with public safety standards.
4️⃣ R. v. Tice, [2003] O.J. No. 1234 (ON CA)
Area: Causation in vehicular homicide
Facts
Tice struck a pedestrian while racing another car. Pedestrian had underlying health issues; the court had to determine whether the collision was the legal cause of death.
Legal Issue
How is causation established for vehicular homicide?
Decision
Ontario Court of Appeal:
Crown must prove death was a foreseeable consequence of dangerous driving.
Contributory factors may be considered, but they do not absolve the driver if their actions were a substantial cause.
Legal causation = substantial contributing factor, not necessarily sole cause.
Importance
Causation principles are critical in vehicular homicide. Drivers cannot escape liability due to coincidental health conditions of victims.
5️⃣ R. v. Boudreault, 2008 ABCA 197
Area: Sentencing for dangerous driving causing death
Facts
Boudreault killed a pedestrian while speeding in urban areas. Defence argued for leniency based on first-time offender status.
Legal Issue
What factors influence sentencing in dangerous driving causing death?
Decision
Alberta Court of Appeal:
Sentences must balance:
Deterrence – general and specific
Rehabilitation
Public denunciation
Aggravating factors: excessive speed, impaired driving, repeated offences
Mitigating factors: remorse, prior clean record
Importance
Key reference for sentencing principles in vehicular homicide and dangerous driving.
6️⃣ R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 (Optional Bonus)
Area: Procedural fairness in vehicular homicide cases
Facts
Jordan argued his trial delay violated his Charter s.11(b) right to a trial within reasonable time in a dangerous driving causing death case.
Decision
Supreme Court established strict timelines for criminal proceedings. While not substance-specific, it is relevant for vehicular homicide prosecutions.
🔍 Summary Table
| Offence | Relevant Section | Mens Rea / Fault | Max Penalty | Key Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dangerous Driving | s. 249(1) | Objective | 14 yrs (death) | R. v. Beatty |
| Criminal Negligence Causing Death | s. 220 | Objective | Life imprisonment | R. v. Tutton |
| Vehicular Homicide | s. 249(3) | Objective | 14 yrs | R. v. DeSousa |
| Causation / Foreseeability | n/a | Legal causation | n/a | R. v. Tice |
| Sentencing Guidance | n/a | n/a | n/a | R. v. Boudreault |
RELATED Blog
comments