5,109
edits
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= July | {{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= July 1, 2023}} | ||
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = motor}} | {{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = motor}} | ||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Dangerous operation causing bodily harm (s 320.13 (2)) is also a hybrid offence. On indictment, the individual is liable to imprisonment for a term not more than 14 years (s 320.2 (a)) The minimum punishment is (s 320.2 (b)): | Dangerous operation causing bodily harm (s 320.13 (2)) is also a hybrid offence. On indictment, the individual is liable to imprisonment for a term not more than 14 years (s 320.2 (a)) The minimum punishment is (s 320.2 (b)): | ||
:(i) | :(i) For a first offence, a fine of $1,000, | ||
:(ii) | :(ii) For a second offence, imprisonment for a term of 30 days, | ||
:(iii) | :(iii) For each subsequent offence, imprisonment for a term of 120 days. | ||
On summary conviction, the individual is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to a term of imprisonment no longer than 2 years less a day, or both. The minimum punishments for convictions on indictment also apply to summary convictions. | On summary conviction, the individual is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to a term of imprisonment no longer than 2 years less a day, or both. The minimum punishments for convictions on indictment also apply to summary convictions. | ||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
In ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1vrp5 R v Beatty]'', [2008] 1 S.C.R. 49, 2008 SCC 5, the Court addressed the issue of criminal negligence in the context of dangerous driving. Unlike ''Creighton'', there is no substantive dissent, though five of the newer Supreme Court justices took a slightly different approach to the modified objective test. They noted that the actual (subjective) state of mind of the accused at the time of the accident is relevant in determining if there was a marked departure from the standard of the reasonable person. In Beatty, a momentary lapse of attention with no other evidence of dangerous driving was held '''not''' sufficient to warrant criminal sanction under s 249 (criminal negligence causing death). | In ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1vrp5 R v Beatty]'', [2008] 1 S.C.R. 49, 2008 SCC 5, the Court addressed the issue of criminal negligence in the context of dangerous driving. Unlike ''Creighton'', there is no substantive dissent, though five of the newer Supreme Court justices took a slightly different approach to the modified objective test. They noted that the actual (subjective) state of mind of the accused at the time of the accident is relevant in determining if there was a marked departure from the standard of the reasonable person. In Beatty, a momentary lapse of attention with no other evidence of dangerous driving was held '''not''' sufficient to warrant criminal sanction under s 249 (criminal negligence causing death). | ||
If | If negligence results in death, an indictable offence has been committed and the driver may be liable to life imprisonment (s 220). If the negligence results in bodily injury, an indictable offence has been committed and the driver may be liable to imprisonment for 10 years (s 221). | ||
== D. Limitation Period == | == D. Limitation Period == | ||
Section 786(2) of the ''Criminal Code'' states that, with respect to summary offences, “[n]o proceedings shall be instituted more than '''six months''' after the time when the subject-matter of the proceedings arose”. In contrast, '''there is no limitation period for indictable offences'''. | Section 786(2) of the ''Criminal Code'' states that, with respect to summary offences, “[n]o proceedings shall be instituted more than '''six months''' after the time when the subject-matter of the proceedings arose”. In contrast, '''there is no limitation period for indictable offences'''. | ||
{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters8-14}} | {{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters8-14}} |
edits