R v Young

R. v. Young

Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division)
Ontario Court of Justice — Her Majesty the Queen | November 27, 1992

Background

Marvin Young was charged with speeding under the Highway Traffic Act after being caught driving significantly over the speed limit. The officer testified that Young was travelling at approximately 50 kilometres per hour above the posted speed limit when he was stopped. Rather than simply paying the fine, Young decided to fight the charge by raising the defence of necessity — arguing that he had no choice but to speed because of urgent bathroom needs.

At trial, Young testified that he was experiencing an urgent need to use washroom facilities and that this biological necessity forced him to exceed the speed limit. The case turned on whether this type of personal emergency could legally justify breaking traffic laws under Ontario's regulatory framework.

Issues

1. Can the defence of necessity apply to Highway Traffic Act charges like speeding?
2. Does an urgent need to use bathroom facilities constitute sufficient necessity to justify exceeding speed limits?

The Defence of Necessity

The court accepted Young's defence of necessity, finding that his urgent biological need created a situation where he had no reasonable alternative but to speed. The judge recognized that while necessity is rarely successful in traffic cases, genuine emergency circumstances can sometimes override the strict liability nature of Highway Traffic Act offences.

The court applied the three-part test for necessity: there must be an imminent peril, no reasonable legal alternative, and the harm caused by breaking the law must be less than the harm the law was designed to prevent. The judge found that Young's biological emergency met these criteria — the urgency was real, stopping wasn't practical given the location, and the risk of a minor speeding violation was outweighed by the personal consequences of not reaching facilities in time.

Key Takeaway

Genuine emergencies can sometimes justify breaking traffic laws, but the necessity must be immediate and leave no reasonable alternatives.

This case shows that even strict liability offences under the Highway Traffic Act aren't absolute — but defendants need compelling evidence of a true emergency situation where compliance with the law would cause greater harm than the violation itself.