2 total
Highway Traffic Act seat belt violations are strict liability offences permitting a due diligence defence.
The respondent was charged with failing to wear a seat belt contrary to the Highway Traffic Act.
At trial, the Justice of the Peace convicted the respondent, ruling that the offence was one of absolute liability.
On appeal, the Ontario Court of Justice found the offence to be one of strict liability and entered a stay of proceedings.
The Crown appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the offence is one of strict liability, which affords the driver a due diligence defence, as there is no clear legislative intent to rebut the presumption of strict liability for public welfare offences.
Leave to appeal granted to determine if failing to wear a seatbelt is an absolute or strict liability offence.
The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision finding that failing to properly wear a seatbelt under s. 106(2) of the Highway Traffic Act is a strict liability offence, rather than an absolute liability offence.
The Court of Appeal granted leave, finding that the classification of the offence is a question of law alone that is of interest to the public at large.
The court also appointed amicus counsel to ensure both sides of the issue are argued.
