A fatal collision does not automatically mean that the driver has committed a criminal offence. That can be difficult to understand when someone has died as a result of a driving error, but Canadian criminal law requires much more than simply proving that a driver's actions caused a death.
The important question is not simply “Did the driver cause the death?” It is “What degree of fault did the driver demonstrate?”
Homicide is not necessarily murder
The Criminal Code defines homicide broadly. A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly and by any means, they cause the death of another human being. Homicide may be culpable or non-culpable, and non-culpable homicide is not an offence. Culpable homicide includes murder, manslaughter and infanticide.
This means that the word homicide by itself does not mean that someone has committed murder. The circumstances and the person's level of fault determine what, if any, criminal offence has occurred.
What makes a death criminal?
One important provision for fatal driving cases is criminal negligence. Section 219 of the Criminal Code says that a person is criminally negligent when, in doing something or failing to do something they have a legal duty to do, they show wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
If criminal negligence causes someone's death, section 220 creates a separate indictable offence. Where no firearm is involved, the offence is punishable by imprisonment for life.
That is a considerably higher threshold than simply making a mistake or being careless. A momentary lapse of attention, poor judgment or failure to notice a hazard may have tragic consequences without necessarily meeting the criminal standard required for criminal negligence.
What about dangerous driving?
Criminal law also deals specifically with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. Section 320.13 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to operate a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all the circumstances, is dangerous to the public. When dangerous operation causes death, a much more serious offence, punishable by imprisonment for life applies.
The distinction is important because a driver can be responsible for a fatal collision without having intended to hurt anyone. The prosecution must still prove the required criminal fault beyond a reasonable doubt.
Courts have therefore had to distinguish between ordinary carelessness and conduct that represents the kind of substantial or marked departure from the standard expected of a reasonably prudent driver that can justify criminal conviction. That distinction can be difficult in individual cases because every collision has its own circumstances.
For example, a driver who makes a momentary mistake while turning might cause a devastating collision. The fact that the consequence was fatal does not, by itself, establish that the driver was criminally negligent or driving dangerously. Conversely, a driver who knowingly engages in extremely dangerous conduct may face criminal charges when a collision occurs, even if the driver did not intend to kill anyone.
Why isn't every fatal crash murder?
Murder requires a substantially different level of culpability. Section 229 of the Criminal Code defines culpable homicide as murder in circumstances that include intentionally causing someone's death, intentionally causing bodily harm known to be likely to cause death while being reckless about whether death occurs, or certain other circumstances involving conduct known to be likely to cause death.
A driver who accidentally strikes and kills a pedestrian while making an otherwise ordinary driving manoeuvre is therefore in a very different legal situation from someone who deliberately uses a vehicle to kill or seriously injure another person.
There can also be circumstances between those two extremes. A fatal collision involving extremely dangerous driving may result in a charge such as dangerous operation causing death, while conduct showing the wanton or reckless disregard required for criminal negligence may support a charge under section 220.
Does a traffic conviction mean the driver got away with causing a death?
Not necessarily. Provincial traffic offences and Criminal Code offences have different legal requirements.
A driver may be convicted of a Motor Vehicle Act offence when the evidence proves a traffic violation but does not establish the much higher criminal standard required for a conviction under the Criminal Code. The absence of a criminal conviction does not mean that the collision was unimportant, that the driver bears no responsibility, or that the death did not result from the driver's actions.
It means that the evidence did not establish the particular elements of a criminal offence to the standard required by criminal law.
This distinction is especially important after a fatal collision. Investigators may have to determine exactly what the driver was doing, what the driver could see and reasonably should have seen, the road and traffic conditions, the vehicle's speed and position, and whether the driver's conduct crossed the line from ordinary negligence or carelessness into criminal conduct.
Who decides what charges are appropriate?
The decision to proceed with criminal charges is based on the evidence and the applicable law. In British Columbia, police investigate the circumstances of a collision and may recommend or lay charges depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances. Crown counsel then has responsibility for prosecuting criminal charges and must assess whether the available evidence supports a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether prosecution is in the public interest.
Ultimately, it is the court that determines whether the prosecution has proved the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is why two fatal collisions that may appear similar in a news report can result in very different legal outcomes. The details that determine criminal responsibility are often found in the evidence presented in court rather than in the fact that someone died.
A fatal collision is always tragic. But criminal law does not impose criminal responsibility simply because the outcome was tragic. The law requires the prosecution to prove the particular conduct and level of fault required for the offence charged.
Learn More
- Log in to post comments