R v Silva

R. v. Silva

2010 ONCJ 121
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice of the Peace Kenneth W. Dechert | March 31, 2010

Background

On October 9, 2008, Rui Silva was riding his motorcycle on North Service Road in Burlington when OPP Constable David Gruber spotted him from Highway 403. The officer observed Silva's motorcycle traveling eastbound with its front wheel approximately two feet off the ground for about 30 feet and several seconds. Silva had only owned his motorcycle for 2-3 months and held a one-week-old M1 learner's permit — essentially a beginner's license for motorcyclists.

When stopped, Silva immediately explained "Yeah, my clutch stuck." He was charged under section 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act for stunt driving, specifically "driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground" as defined in Ontario Regulation 455/07.

Issues

1. Is stunt driving under section 172(1) a strict liability offence or does it require proof of intent?
2. Did the prosecution prove Silva intentionally performed the wheelie?

The Intent Requirement

This case hinged on a crucial legal interpretation. While most Highway Traffic Act offences are strict liability (you're guilty if you did it, regardless of intent), Justice Dechert ruled that stunt driving is different. The regulation defines a stunt as "driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway." That word "intention" changes everything — it means the prosecution must prove the driver meant to do it.

Silva testified that he was an inexperienced rider who accidentally revved his engine while trying to shift from first to second gear. The gear got stuck in neutral, he panicked with traffic behind him, successfully shifted into second while the engine was still revved, and the sudden acceleration caused the unintentional wheelie. He immediately pulled in the clutch to bring the front wheel down.

The Credibility Analysis

Applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility, Justice Dechert found both the officer and Silva to be credible witnesses. However, he didn't need to firmly believe Silva's version — he just needed to have reasonable doubt about whether Silva intended the wheelie. Given Silva's inexperience, his immediate explanation about the clutch, and the brief nature of the incident, the judge concluded he had reasonable doubt about Silva's intent.

Key Takeaway

Stunt driving charges require proof of intention — accidental wheelies don't count if you can prove it was unintentional.

This case shows that not all driving behaviours that look like stunts are actually stunt driving under the law. If you're charged with stunt driving, the prosecution must prove you intended to perform the stunt, not just that it happened.