R v Briggs

R. v. Briggs

[2002] O.J. No. 5416
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice Vaillancourt | December 9, 2002

Background

On July 28, 2002, Kevin Briggs was riding his red motorcycle southbound on Highway 48 in Markham when police spotted him moving at what appeared to be an extremely high rate of speed. The posted limit was 80 km/h, but Briggs was clocked at 130 km/h — and that was just what police could reach while chasing him without gaining any ground on the motorcycle.

The situation escalated dramatically. Police made a U-turn and gave chase with lights and sirens, but Briggs appeared to accelerate even faster. He began passing southbound vehicles by using the northbound lane, darting back into his lane at the last second to avoid head-on collisions — a maneuver he repeated several times. At one intersection, he used the right turn lane to cut off other traffic when the light turned green. Police finally caught up to him when he was forced to stop at a red light at 16th Avenue where multiple vehicles were queued.

Issues

1. Whether the court could accept a guilty plea to a provincial Highway Traffic Act offence when the accused was charged with a federal Criminal Code offence
2. Whether the dangerous driving charge should be dismissed in favor of the lesser speeding conviction

The Plea Bargain Controversy

This case reveals an important but contentious practice in Ontario courts. Briggs was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle under section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code — a serious criminal offence that could result in a criminal record, licence suspension, and even jail time. However, his lawyer negotiated to plead not guilty to the criminal charge and guilty to speeding under section 128(1) of the Highway Traffic Act instead.

Justice Vaillancourt expressed significant reluctance about this arrangement, stating he took "a more restrictive reading" of the Criminal Code provisions that allow pleas to "any other offence." He believed this should be limited to other Criminal Code offences, not provincial legislation. However, he noted this was common practice in Newmarket and reluctantly agreed to accept the arrangement rather than force an amendment to the information, which he described as "really an art of fiction."

The result was that Briggs received a conviction for speeding 50 km/h over the limit, resulting in a fine of $487.50 plus a 20% victim surcharge, with 90 days to pay. The dangerous driving charge was dismissed entirely.

Key Takeaway

Even serious driving can sometimes be plea-bargained down to lesser provincial offences, but this practice varies significantly between courts and judges.

While this case shows that negotiated resolutions between Criminal Code charges and Highway Traffic Act offences do occur, Justice Vaillancourt's reluctance demonstrates that not all judges will accept such arrangements. Self-represented defendants should understand that plea negotiations depend heavily on Crown consent, local court practices, and individual judicial attitudes toward inter-jurisdictional plea bargains.