Last Updated: August 22 2026
I was charged with careless driving under Ontario law. What does the charge mean and what are my possible penalties?
Lo Greco Law handles Ontario traffic offence defence with 30+ year experienced lawyer services, including careless driving matters and LSO tribunal representation. Under Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 130, careless driving is broadly driving “without due care and attention” or “without reasonable consideration” for other highway users. For careless driving causing bodily harm or death, the charge is treated more harshly and can lead to larger fines, potential jail, and longer licence suspension periods. Penalties for the basic offence can include a fine from $400 to $2,000, up to six months less, a possible up to 2-year licence suspension, and demerit points, while the bodily harm or death offence can include fines up to $50,000, up to two years’ imprisonment, and up to a 5-year licence suspension. The court test is not “perfect” driving; it is whether an “ordinary prudent driver” would have used the required care in the circumstances, which often turns on the specific facts and evidence. Call (416) 488-4110 for a prompt case review in Ontario.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
The traffic offence of careless driving is a very serious offence. The offence may be charged where a driver fails to operate a vehicle in a manner that a vehicle would be operated by an "ordinary prudent driver". Furthermore, an even more serious version of the charge exists where a driver fails to operate a vehicle in a manner of an "ordinary prudent driver" and death or injury occurs as a result.
Note: Please contact Lo Greco Law by phone at: (416) 488-4110 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
The Law
What Legally Constitutes As Careless Driving?
The charge of careless driving provides the law with a vaguely defined and thus broadly applicable charge available for many situations. Specifically, the charge of careless driving as legally defined is provided within the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 which states:
Careless Driving
130 (1) Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway.
Penalty
(2) On conviction under subsection (1), a person is liable to a fine of not less than $400 and not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her driver’s licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than two years.
Careless Driving Causing Bodily Harm or Death
(3) Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway and who thereby causes bodily harm or death to any person.
Penalty
(4) On conviction under subsection (3), a person is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or to both, and in addition his or her driver’s licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than five years.
Deemed Lack of Reasonable Consideration
(5) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (3), a person is deemed to drive without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway if he or she drives in a manner that may limit his or her ability to prudently adjust to changing circumstances on the highway.
Sentencing — Aggravating Factor
(6) A court that imposes a sentence for an offence under subsection (3) shall consider as an aggravating factor evidence that bodily harm or death was caused to a person who, in the circumstances of the offence, was vulnerable to a lack of due care and attention or reasonable consideration by a driver, including by virtue of the fact that the person was a pedestrian or cyclist.
Per the above, careless driving is legally defined as operating a vehicle "without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons"; and thus actual court cases often require a review of previous judicial decisions when determining, from a reasonably objective viewpoint, what is meant by "without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons". Examples for review may include:
- Whether changing a radio station is "without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons"?
- Whether two-handed eating while steering with knees is "without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons"?
- Whether glancing at a map while trying to navigate an unfamiliar city is "without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons"?
- Whether reading a report in preparation of a morning meeting while commuting to work is "without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons"?
How Is the Meaning of Due Care and Attention Legally Defined?
To determine what actually is "without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons" requires something more than just assessing whether some form of driving imperfection occurred. Instead, the assessment requires a hypothetical review of the conduct an "ordinary prudent driver" faced with similar circumstances. This basis for determining what actually is "without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons" was stated by the Court of Appeal within the precedent setting case of R. v. Beauchamp, 1952 CanLII 60 which is frequently cited and relied upon within more recent cases such as occurred within the case of York (Regional Municipality) v. Lam, 2017 ONCJ 290 wherein it is said:
[28] In determining the requisite standard of care and skill required of a motorist facing a charge of careless driving, I look to the often cited Ontario Court of Appeal judgment, R. v. Beauchamp, 1952 CanLII 60 (ON CA), [1953] O.R. 422, in which the standard is not one of perfection. Instead, Justice MacKay, writing for the Court, sets out the appropriate legal test as follows:
… It is whether it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this accused, in the light of existing circumstances of which he was aware or of which a driver exercising ordinary care should have been aware, failed to use the care and attention or to give to other persons using the highway the consideration that a driver of ordinary care would have used or given in the circumstances? The use of the term “due care”, which means care owing in the circumstances, makes it quite clear that, while the legal standard of care remains the same in the sense that it is what the average careful man would have done in like circumstances, the factual standard is a constantly shifting one, depending on road, visibility, weather conditions, traffic conditions that exist or may reasonably be expected, and any other conditions that ordinary prudent drivers would take into consideration. It is a question of fact, depending on the circumstances in each case. [Emphasis added.]
Vehicle Defined Broadly
Can a Bicyclist Be Charged With Careless Driving?
Careless driving as per section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act, as is provided above, may be charged upon the operator of a "vehicle"rather than only upon those who operate a "motor vehicle". As section 1 of the Highway Traffic Act includes bicycle, among other things, within the definition of "vehicle", there is the possibility that a person riding a bicycle, among other things, could be charged with careless driving. Specifically, "bicycle" and "vehicle", per the Highway Traffic Act, are defined as:
“bicycle” includes a tricycle, a unicycle and a power-assisted bicycle but does not include a motor assisted bicycle;
“vehicle” includes a motor vehicle, trailer, traction engine, farm tractor, road-building machine, bicycle and any vehicle drawn, propelled or driven by any kind of power, including muscular power, but does not include a motorized snow vehicle or a street car;
Penalties
What Are the Consequences Upon Conviction of Careless Driving?
A careless driving conviction, being the generalized careless driving offence as provided by section 130(1) of the Highway Traffic Act as opposed to the careless driving causing death or injury charge as provided by section 130(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, involves potentially very serious penalties. Upon conviction, the driver is subjected to a fine ranging between $400 and $2,000 plus a victim surcharge and six (6) demerit points. There is also the possibility of a license suspension for a maximum period of two (2) years as well as jail for a maximum of six (6) months. Additionally, a convicted driver will likely face very significant insurance rate increases.
