R v Hickey

Regina v. Hickey

(1977), 13 O.R. (2d) 228
Ontario Court of Appeal — Jessup, Martin and Wilson JJ.A. | October 15, 1976

Background

Hickey was convicted of speeding under the Highway Traffic Act at trial. He appealed to the Ontario Divisional Court, arguing that he had made a reasonable mistake of fact about his speed and should be acquitted on that basis. The Divisional Court agreed with Hickey and allowed his appeal, overturning the speeding conviction.

The Crown wasn't satisfied with that result and appealed the Divisional Court's decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal, arguing that speeding offences don't allow for a defence of reasonable mistake of fact.

Issues

1. What category of statutory offence is speeding under the Highway Traffic Act?
2. Is the defence of reasonable mistake of fact available for speeding charges?

The Three Categories of Statutory Offences

The Court of Appeal referenced a classification system developed by Chief Justice Estey that divides statutory offences into three groups. The court determined that speeding falls into the third group — absolute liability offences. This is the harshest category where the Crown only needs to prove you did the prohibited act (drove over the speed limit), and you cannot defend yourself by arguing you made an honest and reasonable mistake about the facts.

Unlike strict liability offences where due diligence can be a defence, or mens rea offences where intent matters, absolute liability offences are exactly what they sound like — if you did it, you're guilty, period. The court ruled that for speeding, it doesn't matter if your speedometer was broken, if you genuinely believed you were going slower, or if you took all reasonable care to monitor your speed.

Key Takeaway

Speeding is an absolute liability offence where reasonable mistake of fact is not a defence.

If you're charged with speeding, you cannot argue that you honestly and reasonably believed you were driving within the speed limit. The only defences available are those that challenge whether you were actually speeding (like attacking the radar evidence) or procedural defects in the prosecution's case.