R v Hiraman

Her Majesty The Queen v. Devina Hiraman

Court File No.: 0661-9890588B, Date: 2013-06-17
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice Douglas B. Maund

Background

Devina Hiraman was convicted by Justice of the Peace D. Dudar on January 25, 2013, for "Fail to Stop for School Bus – Meeting," contrary to Section 175(11) of the Highway Traffic Act. The conviction came after what appears to have been a straightforward traffic violation case where Hiraman was charged with not stopping when meeting a school bus.

But Hiraman wasn't going down without a fight. She appealed her conviction to the Ontario Court of Justice, raising a fundamental question about the nature of the offence itself — specifically, whether this was an absolute liability offence (where you're guilty if you did it, period) or a strict liability offence (where you might have a defence if you exercised due diligence).

Issues

1. Whether the offence under Section 175(11) of the Highway Traffic Act is an absolute liability offence or a strict liability offence
2. Whether a defence of mistake of fact or due diligence should have been available to the appellant at trial

The Liability Classification Analysis

Justice Maund dove deep into the legal framework established in R v Sault Ste. Marie, which sets out four key factors for determining whether a provincial offence is absolute or strict liability: (1) the overall regulatory pattern, (2) the subject matter of the legislation, (3) the importance of the penalty, and (4) the precision of the language used.

The court found that Section 175(11) was designed to protect public safety, especially children's safety during school transportation. The penalties are substantial — first offence fines range from $400 to $2,000, and repeat offenders face $1,000 to $4,000 fines or up to six months in jail. Crucially, the court noted that the Highway Traffic Act doesn't include any language suggesting due diligence could be a defence to this particular charge, unlike some other sections that explicitly provide such exemptions.

Here's where it gets interesting: Justice Maund concluded that there's a "strong presumption in favour of strict liability" and found that this presumption wasn't displaced by the evidence. This meant Hiraman should have had access to defences like mistake of fact or due diligence — but the Justice of the Peace never considered or applied the correct legal test for these potential defences.

Key Takeaway

Even serious Highway Traffic Act offences may allow for due diligence defences if the court incorrectly treats them as absolute liability offences.

If you're facing a school bus stopping charge, the classification of the offence matters enormously — it determines whether you can argue you exercised reasonable care or made an honest mistake of fact, rather than being automatically guilty just because the incident occurred.