Failing to Remain or Stop Lawyer Newmarket | Toronto

Leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident is not just a traffic matter. Under Canadian law, Failing to Remain or Stop at the scene of an accident is a criminal offence that can result in a permanent criminal record, a driving prohibition, and, in the most serious cases, imprisonment for life. The charge applies regardless of who was at fault for the collision itself. What matters is whether the driver knew or was reckless about whether an accident had occurred, and whether the driver stopped, provided their name and address, and offered assistance where someone appeared to be injured.

Section 320.16 of the Criminal Code creates three tiers of the offence: failure to stop after an accident simpliciter, failure to stop where the accident resulted in bodily harm, and failure to stop where the accident resulted in death (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 320.16). Each tier carries progressively heavier penalties, and the charge is separate from any provincial driving offence that may arise from the same incident under Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act. For drivers in Newmarket and across York Region, the consequences of a conviction under the Criminal Code are far more severe than a regulatory ticket, and the legal issues involved are often more complex than they first appear.

The Legal Elements of the Offence

To secure a conviction for failing to remain or stop, the Crown must prove several elements beyond a reasonable doubt. First, the accused must have been operating a conveyance. Second, the conveyance must have been involved in an accident with a person or another conveyance. Third, the accused must have known, or been reckless as to whether, the accident occurred. Fourth, the accused must have failed, without reasonable excuse, to stop the conveyance, give their name and address, and, if any person was injured or appeared to require assistance, offer that assistance (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 320.16(1)).

The knowledge requirement is frequently the most contested element. The Crown does not need to prove that the driver knew with certainty that an accident had taken place. It is enough to establish that the driver was reckless about whether one had occurred, meaning the driver was aware of the possibility but chose not to investigate. This can arise, for example, where a driver hears or feels an impact but continues driving without stopping to check. Courts will look at the totality of the circumstances, including the time of day, visibility, road conditions, the extent of vehicle damage, and any evidence about what the driver would have experienced inside the vehicle at the moment of impact.

The term “accident” does not require that significant physical damage occurred. Any contact between two vehicles or between a vehicle and a person is sufficient, including contact with a parked and unoccupied vehicle. Even in that situation, the driver has a legal obligation to stop and make reasonable efforts to locate the other driver or leave identifying information.

Penalties and Consequences

The penalties for this offence are tiered according to whether the accident involved property damage alone, bodily harm, or death. For the base offence under section 320.16(1), the charge is hybrid. On indictment, the maximum sentence is ten years’ imprisonment. On summary conviction, the maximum is two years less a day (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 320.19(5)). Where the accident resulted in bodily harm, the maximum on indictment rises to fourteen years. Where it resulted in death, the maximum is imprisonment for life, and the offence becomes strictly indictable (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, ss 320.2, 320.21).

A conviction at any tier commonly brings the following consequences:

• A permanent criminal record registered on the CPIC database, which appears on employment and volunteer background checks and can affect professional licensing
• A discretionary driving prohibition under section 320.24, the length of which depends on the tier of the offence and can extend to any duration for cases involving death, plus the full period of any custodial sentence
• Substantially increased automobile insurance premiums, often for years following the conviction, and potential denial of coverage
• Immigration consequences for non-citizens, including potential inadmissibility on grounds of serious criminality where the offence carries a maximum sentence of ten years or more
• Difficulties entering the United States, where Canadian criminal records are accessible to U.S. Customs and Border Protection

The Criminal Code also lists statutory aggravating factors that the sentencing court must consider, including whether the accident caused harm to more than one person, whether a child under sixteen was a passenger, and whether the driver was not lawfully permitted to operate the vehicle (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 320.22). Cases where the driver fled the scene to avoid criminal or civil liability, particularly where impaired driving is also suspected, are treated with particular severity.

Defences and Strategic Considerations

A charge of Failing to Remain or Stop is far from automatic, and many of these cases turn on factual questions that create real opportunities for the defence. The most common line of defence focuses on the knowledge element. If the accused did not know and was not reckless about whether an accident had occurred, the offence is not made out. This arises with some regularity in low-speed collisions, incidents involving parked vehicles, and situations where road noise, weather, or the size of the vehicle made the impact difficult to detect.

The statute also contains the words “without reasonable excuse,” which provides a recognized pathway to acquittal. A driver who left the scene briefly to seek help, to move to a safer location, or because of a genuine concern for personal safety may be able to establish a reasonable excuse, provided the driver fulfilled the statutory obligations as soon as it was practical to do so. Returning to the scene, contacting police, or reporting the accident shortly after it occurred can all be relevant to this analysis.

A defence lawyer reviewing the disclosure in a failure to stop case will examine questions such as:

• Whether the Crown can prove the accused was the driver at the time of the accident, particularly in cases where the vehicle was identified but the driver was not stopped at the scene
• Whether the evidence supports the conclusion that the accused knew or was reckless about the accident, or whether the circumstances are consistent with a genuine lack of awareness
• Whether the accused fulfilled the statutory obligations within a reasonable time, even if not immediately at the scene
• Whether any statements made to police were obtained in compliance with the accused’s Charter rights, including the right to counsel and the right to silence

In some cases, particularly where the collision involved only property damage, the strongest outcome may involve resolving the criminal charge to a provincial offence under the Highway Traffic Act, which does not carry a criminal record. Where a discharge is available under the Criminal Code, it may also prevent the most damaging long-term consequences. The appropriate strategy depends entirely on the evidence and the specific circumstances.

Frequently Asked Questions

A charge of Failing to Remain or Stop at the scene of an accident is a serious criminal matter that can result in a permanent record, a driving prohibition, and imprisonment. Yet the Crown must prove that the driver knew or was reckless about the accident and failed to stop without a reasonable excuse, and each of those elements can be tested against the available evidence. The difference between a criminal conviction and a non-criminal resolution often comes down to the strength of the defence and the quality of the legal strategy.

Anyone facing this charge in Newmarket or elsewhere in York Region should speak with a criminal defence lawyer as soon as possible. Early legal advice is especially important in these cases, because statements made to police, insurance companies, or other parties in the immediate aftermath of the incident can have a direct impact on the outcome. The sooner the disclosure is reviewed, the better positioned the defence will be.