R v Fong

R. v. Fong

2004 ONCJ 222
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice Beverly A. Brown | October 6, 2004

Background

On September 10, 2003, Man-Ho Fong was riding a yellow Suzuki motorcycle eastbound on Highway 401 near Dixon Road in Toronto, weaving between lanes without signalling. When an OPP officer pulled him over for failing to drive in a marked lane, Fong gave a false name — "Ben Wong" — and was ticketed for driving without a permit and valid insurance. While the officer was still investigating, Fong fled the scene. The officer didn't pursue due to the dangerous location on the 401.

Seventeen minutes later, there was a report of an abandoned motorcycle on the westbound ramp that had collided with a guardrail, scraping the concrete barrier for 4 metres and sustaining significant damage. The driver had fled. When police tracked down the registered owner that evening, they were given Fong's name as the new owner. Fong then told police the motorcycle had been stolen and he was waiting for York Regional Police. His lawyer later called to say Fong would cancel the false theft report. Fong was eventually arrested and charged with four offences.

Issues

1. Whether the court should accept a joint submission for a fine of $2,000, significantly below the $5,000 minimum fine for driving without insurance under s. 2(1)(a) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act
2. Whether Fong's financial circumstances as a university student constituted "exceptional circumstances" under s. 59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act

The Minimum Fine Battle

Both Crown and defence counsel jointly submitted that Fong should pay only $2,000 for the no-insurance charge — 60% below the statutory minimum of $5,000. They argued his financial situation as a student warranted this reduction under s. 59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act, which allows courts to impose less than the minimum fine where "exceptional circumstances exist so that to impose the minimum fine would be unduly oppressive."

Justice Brown firmly rejected this argument, relying heavily on R. v. Fagbemi. The court noted that when the Legislature increased the minimum fine from $500 to $5,000 in 1996 — a tenfold increase — it was specifically designed to exceed the insurance premiums that even high-risk drivers would pay. The penalty was deliberately set to be difficult for most people to afford, particularly targeting "relatively poor young male students" who might be tempted to drive uninsured.

The court found Fong's circumstances were not exceptional at all. Being a university student without income doesn't excuse someone from the legal responsibility to insure their vehicle before driving it. As the court put it: "A student without means of income, and without proper means of acquiring and insuring a motor vehicle, should not be able to escape the usual penalties for this offence simply by virtue of this circumstance."

Key Takeaway

Financial hardship alone — even being a broke student — won't get you below the minimum $5,000 fine for driving without insurance.

The courts view the high minimum fine as a deliberate policy choice to deter people from driving uninsured. If you can't afford insurance, the law's position is simple: don't drive.