R v Hynes

Her Majesty the Queen v. Andrew Hynes

Provincial Court (Criminal Division), Brampton
Judge B.E. MacPhee | July 17, 1990

Background

Andrew Hynes was charged under section 119(1) of the Highway Traffic Act after a collision while exiting a driveway. The facts were straightforward: Hynes was leaving a driveway to a small shopping plaza, attempting to make a left turn onto a busy street. He had crossed two lanes of traffic and stopped partially in the left-turn lane when another vehicle collided with him. The other driver had been stopped for several seconds behind other vehicles that had stopped to allow Hynes to exit the driveway.

The case hinged on the specific wording of section 119(1), which requires drivers to yield "so close that to enter would constitute an immediate hazard." Defense counsel argued that because Hynes had already crossed two lanes and was stopped in position, he hadn't violated the section. The Crown countered that traffic had to stop for Hynes, proving he created an immediate hazard.

Issues

1. Whether a driver who has already partially entered a highway can be convicted under section 119(1) HTA
2. Whether the fact that traffic stopped for the defendant proves an "immediate hazard" was created

The Timing Defense

Judge MacPhee focused on the precise timing of when the alleged offense occurred versus when the collision happened. The evidence showed Hynes had been stopped for "three or four seconds" in the left-turn lane before being hit. Defense counsel argued successfully that by the time of collision, Hynes was no longer "entering" the highway — he had already entered it and stopped.

The judge found this timing argument compelling, noting there was "a considerable time frame during which he accomplished moving from the roadway over to the left-hand lane." The court distinguished this case from Regina and Parrot, where the collision occurred during the actual entry process. Here, the collision happened after Hynes had completed crossing two lanes and positioned himself in the turn lane.

Crucially, the judge noted that while traffic did stop to allow Hynes to leave the driveway, this didn't automatically prove a section 119(1) violation. The offense requires that entering would constitute an immediate hazard — but once the entry is complete and the driver is positioned safely, the analysis changes.

Key Takeaway

Section 119(1) HTA violations must be proven at the moment of entry, not based on subsequent events.

If you're charged under section 119(1) after a driveway collision, examine the timing carefully. The Crown must prove the hazard existed when you were actually entering the highway, not after you've already positioned yourself in traffic. This case shows that successfully completing a lane change — even if traffic accommodated you — doesn't automatically prove you violated the section.