Summary#

Bill 40 would amend Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act by adding a new offence for drivers whose listed road-rule violations cause or contribute to a death or serious bodily harm to certain road users. The bill’s stated goal is to add consequences in those cases. Its text gives the short title as the Moving Ontarians Safely Act, 2022, although the supplied title calls it the 2023 Act.

• A driver could be convicted of the new offence only if they caused or contributed to the death or serious bodily harm while contravening one or more listed rules. The rules cover matters such as speeding, careless driving, phone use, traffic signals, sharing the road and safety near emergency vehicles.
• The protected groups include pedestrians, people on bicycles or motor assisted bicycles, mobility-device users, roadway workers, certain emergency responders outside motor vehicles, and any other individuals later prescribed by regulation.
• A convicted driver would face the penalty and other consequences for the underlying rule violation, plus a mandatory probation order. It must require a driving instruction course and 50 to 200 hours of community service, including work related to driving safety.
• The driver’s licence would be suspended for the probation period, which can last up to one year at first. A court may extend probation by up to another year in specified circumstances.
• Defendants must attend sentencing in person. Courts must consider relevant victim impact statements.

What it means for you#

• Drivers: This would create an additional offence, not make every collision involving serious injury or death an offence. The driver must have caused or contributed to the harm while breaking at least one listed rule. The new offence is not classified as an absolute-liability offence.
• Drivers convicted under the new offence: The court must order the course and community service, as well as the consequences for the underlying violation. The bill does not say who pays for the course or how it would be arranged.
• People in the protected groups: The bill would include the listed groups in the new offence’s scope. It does not create a separate service or compensation benefit for them.
• People affected by the offence: They may present a statement about physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss. The court must consider the parts it finds relevant to sentencing.
• General public: The bill does not itself change speed limits, create a general driving ban, or require police to charge drivers in every qualifying collision.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material. No publicly available information.

• The bill would require convicted drivers to complete a course and community service, but gives no estimate of costs or who would pay any course fees.
• It sets a fine of up to $50,000 for a conviction for breaching the probation order. A court may also suspend a licence or permit for up to two years for that breach.
• The bill gives no estimate of court, enforcement or administration costs.

What is unclear#

• The Highway Traffic Act itself was not supplied, so the current law and the full meaning of the listed rules could not be checked against it.
• The bill does not define “serious bodily harm.” It also leaves the details of additional protected individuals to regulations.
• It does not set the course’s requirements; regulations may do so. No regulations or course details were supplied.
• The bill does not explain how courts would set community service hours, how service placements would be arranged, or who would pay course costs.
• The bill says it would start six months after Royal Assent, but the supplied material does not say whether it has received Royal Assent. The bill’s passage and start date are therefore uncertain.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to add consequences when breaking certain road rules causes or contributes to death or serious bodily harm.
• A possible argument for the approach is that the extra probation, safety-focused service and course directly connect consequences to road safety.
• Requiring courts to consider relevant impact statements could give people harmed by the offence a formal way to describe its effects.

Case against#

• One concern is that the mandatory licence suspension, course and community service would apply on top of the underlying penalties, even though the bill does not explain how courts should tailor these requirements to individual circumstances.
• The meaning of “serious bodily harm” is not set out in the bill, and the scope could also expand through regulations prescribing more protected groups.
• The bill does not provide details about course availability, costs or how community service would be arranged. Those gaps could affect how the requirements work in practice.