R v Bedard

R. v. Bedard

[2009] O.J. No. 4720
Ontario Court of Justice — J.D. Takach J. | Heard December 8, 2008, Judgment October 22, 2009

Background

Trevor Greenidge, a Ministry of Transportation officer, stopped Paul Jonathan driving a 1992 Ford pickup truck in Hamilton. Jonathan couldn't produce valid insurance and only had a health card for ID. The vehicle registration showed the owner was Kimberly Bedard of Hamilton. Officer Greenidge gave Jonathan his business card with a fax number, requesting proof of insurance within 24 hours. No proof came in the next two days, so Greenidge had an information sworn and summons issued to Bedard.

Bedard was personally served and appeared at trial with an agent. She didn't testify. The Crown proved the vehicle registration matched the plate number and vehicle stopped. The Justice of the Peace dismissed a non-suit motion but then dismissed the charge anyway, saying the Crown hadn't proven Bedard "permitted" the driver to operate the uninsured vehicle.

Issues

1. What type of offence is section 2(1)(b) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act — does it require mens rea or is it strict liability?
2. Was there sufficient evidence that Bedard "permitted" the operation of her uninsured vehicle?

The Strict Liability Analysis

Justice Takach applied the landmark R. v. Sault Ste. Marie framework, which recognizes three categories of offences: (1) true mens rea offences requiring intent/knowledge, (2) strict liability offences where proving the prohibited act creates a presumption of guilt but the accused can escape by proving reasonable care, and (3) absolute liability with no defences.

The court held that "permit the operation" under the Insurance Act creates strict liability, not mens rea. The word "permit" doesn't require knowledge or intent — if the legislature wanted that, they would have used words like "knowingly" or "wilfully." Since uninsured driving is a public welfare issue (protecting innocent road users from financial harm), the law presumes you're responsible once the Crown proves your vehicle was driven uninsured. However, you can escape liability by proving you took reasonable care to prevent it, or reasonably believed facts that would make the act innocent.

The Agency Presumption

The court also found that when someone produces your vehicle ownership documents during a traffic stop, that's prima facie evidence they had your permission to drive. Jonathan "had no difficulty producing the ownership and, apparently, knew where to find it with ease." This creates a presumption that he was your agent driving with consent — unless you prove otherwise.

Key Takeaway

Being the registered owner of an uninsured vehicle that gets caught on the road creates a legal presumption that you permitted it — ignorance isn't a defence.

If you're charged as an owner, you need to prove either that you took reasonable steps to ensure the vehicle wouldn't be driven uninsured, or that it was driven without your permission. Simply not knowing doesn't cut it under strict liability.