International Law

In view of the very significant penalties applicable under the section, Mr. Justice West ruled the provision unconstitutional:

[33] It is my opinion that the subject matter of the legislation in issue is undoubtedly speeding, which the Court of Appeal has defined as an absolute liability offence. I am bound by that characterization. Further, it is my view that calling the conduct ?stunt? driving does not change its characterization ? it is still a speeding offence albeit by a different name. There is nothing about the manner of driving 50 or more kilometres above the speed limit in section 3(7) of the Regulations that elevates or differentiates the conduct from the conduct set out in section 128 (a speeding offence).

[47] However, in my view, the combination of section 172 of the HTA and section 3(7) of O. Reg. 455/07 is only open to one interpretation and having regard to my assessment that the conduct described by section 3(7) is an absolute liability offence, the possibility of the imposition of up to six months imprisonment thereby renders this section unconstitutional.

[53] Consequently, section 3(7) of O. Reg. 455/07 is unconstitutional and is of no force and effect. Applying the doctrine of severance, only that subsection need be severed from the Regulations. The charge against Ms. Drutz is therefore dismissed.