The Moving Ontarians Safely Act, 2022 adds a new Part to the Highway Traffic Act that makes a driver guilty of an offence if they cause or contribute to death or serious bodily harm to defined road users by contravening any of a long list of specified HTA provisions. The definition of protected road users covers pedestrians, cyclists, mobility-device users, highway workers and emergency responders who are not in vehicles.
A conviction triggers the penalties associated with the underlying HTA contravention plus mandatory probation containing a driving instruction course and community service (50–200 hours tied to road-safety education), a licence suspension for the probation period, required personal attendance at sentencing, and formal consideration of victim impact statements. The bill also changes charging procedure and gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council regulatory authority over course standards and prescribed classes of protected persons.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a new statutory offence when a motor-vehicle driver causes death or serious bodily harm to specified road users by breaching one or more identified Highway Traffic Act provisions. Conviction imposes the penalties for the underlying contravention and a mandatory probation order that includes a driving course and community service; the driver’s licence is suspended for the probation term.
Who It Affects
Drivers of motor vehicles (other than motor-assisted bicycles) alleged to have caused serious injury or death through specified HTA breaches; vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair/mobility-device users, roadway workers and certain emergency responders); municipal prosecutors, courts and policing agencies who will handle new information-based proceedings.
Why It Matters
The bill converts certain traffic contraventions plus causation into a stand-alone offence with quasi-criminal consequences and mandatory rehabilitative and restorative conditions; it shifts charging formality, raises procedural requirements at sentencing, and embeds victim impact as a statutory consideration—changes that will affect enforcement strategy, court workloads and post-conviction compliance.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a new Part in the Highway Traffic Act that targets situations where a motor vehicle driver, by violating one or more enumerated HTA provisions, causes or contributes to death or serious bodily injury to a specified set of road users. The protected classes include pedestrians, people on bicycles (and motor-assisted bicycles), users of wheelchairs and other mobility devices, highway workers on the roadway, and emergency responders who are on foot or otherwise not inside a vehicle.
The list of enumerated HTA provisions is long and covers many common road-rule breaches (for example: speeding, cellphone use, failing to yield, improper signalling, unsafe dooring and rules around crossings and emergency vehicles), meaning the new offence links specific traffic misconduct to a heightened statutory consequence when serious harm results.
On conviction, the court must impose whatever penalties apply for the underlying HTA breach (fines or other consequences) and, in addition, must order a mandatory probation period of up to one year containing two core conditions: successful completion of a driving instruction course (standards set by regulation) and community service. The community-service condition must be between 50 and 200 hours and must include activities that relate to public education on driving safety or otherwise improve driving safety.
The driver’s licence is suspended for the entire duration of the probation order.Procedurally, prosecutions under the new offence must be started by laying an information under Part III of the Provincial Offences Act rather than by filing a certificate of offence; any proceeding commenced by certificate in these cases is a nullity. The bill requires the defendant to personally attend sentencing hearings (with limited exceptions), empowers courts to compel attendance, and requires courts to consider victim impact statements when setting penalties and other consequences.
It also creates enforcement mechanisms for breach of a probation order (including potential fines up to $50,000 and licence/permit suspensions up to two years) and allows the court, in narrow circumstances, to extend probation for up to an additional year if the defendant shows good cause for earlier non-compliance. Finally, the Lieutenant Governor in Council can make regulations to prescribe additional classes of protected individuals and to set course requirements for the mandatory driving instruction.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The new offence applies only when a driver’s contravention of one or more specified HTA provisions causes or contributes to death or serious bodily harm to certain road users; the bill lists more than 40 distinct HTA provisions as triggering rules.
Conviction requires the court to impose a mandatory probation order (maximum one year) that includes a driving instruction course and community service, where community service must be set between 50 and 200 hours and must include road-safety education activities.
A convicted driver’s licence is suspended for the entire duration of the probation order; the court may continue and extend that probation for up to an additional year for good cause (subject to statutory limits).
Prosecutions for the new offence must be commenced by laying an information under Part III of the Provincial Offences Act; attempting to use a certificate of offence to start these proceedings produces a nullity.
Breach of the court-ordered probation can lead to a provincial offence conviction under s.75 of the Provincial Offences Act with penalties up to a $50,000 fine and possible licence or permit suspension of up to two years; clause 75(d) of the POA is expressly excluded.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New Part adding consequences for injury or death to certain road users
This Part is the statutory home for the new offence and related procedural and sentencing rules. It establishes the Act’s focus—linking specified HTA contraventions to aggravated consequences when they cause serious harm or death to a defined set of vulnerable users—and contains the sections that define the offence, list the protected persons, and authorize regulatory detail. Practically, housing these rules in a separate Part signals the legislature intended a distinct enforcement framework rather than small tweaks to scattered HTA provisions.
Offence definition and list of protected road users
This section defines the offence: a driver (not including motor-assisted bicycles) who causes or contributes to death or serious bodily harm to a person listed in subsection (2) by contravening one or more listed HTA provisions is guilty of an offence. Subsection (2) enumerates the protected persons—pedestrians, cyclists, mobility-device users, roadway workers, and certain emergency responders acting in the course of duty and not in a vehicle—and permits the government to add classes by regulation. Subsection (3) ties the offence to a long, explicit catalogue of HTA provisions so that liability depends on both causation and breach of specified road rules.
Sentencing: penalties, mandatory probation and licence suspension
On conviction the court must impose the penalties and other consequences that apply for the underlying HTA contravention (so existing fines or administrative consequences flow through). In addition the court must order probation with two mandatory conditions: completion of a driving instruction course (regulatory standards permitted) and community service. Community service is capped at 200 hours and cannot be less than 50 hours; it must include activities related to public education or otherwise improving driving safety. The driver’s licence is suspended for the duration of the probation, making the probation both punitive and immediately consequential for road use.
Charging procedure — information required; certificate invalid
The bill changes the procedural route: proceedings for the new offence and for any alleged underlying HTA contravention that forms part of the offence must be commenced by laying an information under Part III of the Provincial Offences Act rather than by filing a certificate of offence. The text makes clear that commencing by certificate is a nullity. That heightened procedural formality increases prosecutorial and court involvement from the outset and creates a stricter record for contested causation and fault issues.
Mandatory sentencing attendance and victim impact statements
Defendants must personally attend every sentencing hearing for the offence; the court must postpone sentencing until the defendant attends (subject to narrow statutory exceptions) and may use its powers to compel personal attendance. The court is required to consider victim impact statements describing physical, emotional or economic harm; it may accept statements in whatever form it deems appropriate but will weigh only the portions relevant to penalty and other consequences. These provisions place procedural emphasis on victim participation and defendant accountability at sentencing.
Probation enforcement, extensions, regulations and consequential amendments
Breach of a probation order under the new regime can attract prosecution under s.75 of the Provincial Offences Act with a maximum fine of $50,000 and a potential licence or permit suspension for up to two years; the bill excludes clause 75(d) for these breaches. The court may continue a probation order for up to an additional year for good cause if a defendant fails to comply but shows good cause for non-compliance; that option is not available following a conviction for s.75. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may prescribe additional protected individuals and set driving-course requirements. The bill also amends s.207(2) of the HTA to reference the new offence, ensuring regulatory and administrative provisions that refer to particular sections capture the new offence where relevant.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Pedestrians, cyclists and mobility-device users — the statute creates explicit legal recognition and additional enforcement tools when these users suffer serious harm, potentially improving post-incident accountability and deterrence.
- Roadside workers and emergency responders — the bill singles out these groups so that harm to them caused by specified HTA breaches triggers the new offence, strengthening protections for people who work on or beside roadways.
- Victims and families — mandatory personal attendance at sentencing and codified consideration of victim impact statements increase opportunities for victims to be heard and for courts to factor harms into penalties and restorative measures.
- Road-safety and public-education organizations — the community-service requirement must include public education on driving safety, creating potential partnerships and program demand for organizations that design and deliver safety outreach.
- Municipalities seeking stronger enforcement tools — local prosecutors and municipal authorities gain a statutory offence that aggregates causation and a defined class of HTA breaches, which can support targeted enforcement campaigns.
Who Bears the Cost
- Accused drivers — individuals found to have caused serious harm face prosecution, mandatory probation with 50–200 hours of community service, licence suspension for the probation term, and significant penalties for probation breach (including large fines and further licence loss).
- Municipal courts and prosecutors — the requirement to commence by information and the emphasis on personal sentencing attendance and victim statements will increase prosecutorial work, court scheduling needs and overall administrative burden.
- Police and collision investigators — proving causation tied to specific HTA contraventions in cases of serious injury or death will often demand more detailed investigations, expert evidence and resources than standard ticket-level enforcement.
- Driving-instruction providers and education programs — mandatory course standards set by regulation and higher demand for court-ordered instruction and public-education placements will place new operational and compliance burdens on course providers.
- Municipal social-service or program administrators — the law’s community-service requirement (with a public-education element) may require municipalities or community partners to develop, administer and supervise appropriate service placements.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between strengthening protection and accountability for vulnerable road users by converting certain traffic contraventions that cause serious harm into a higher-stakes provincial offence, and the risk of converting commonplace regulatory breaches or honest errors into heavily consequential quasi-criminal outcomes; the bill increases deterrence and victim-centered sentencing but also raises evidentiary, resource and fairness questions about when and how to escalate traffic misconduct into punishable offences with long-term personal and social costs.
The bill ties criminal-adjacent consequences to contraventions of a long catalogue of HTA provisions and to causation of serious harm, but it does not create a new offence based solely on reckless driving; instead liability rests on proving both a breach of specific road rules and that the breach caused or contributed to the harm. That dual requirement raises evidentiary and causation issues in many collisions (weather, road conditions, third-party conduct), and prosecutors will often need technical evidence to link a listed breach to the injury or death.
At the same time the statute expressly declares the new offence is not an absolute liability offence, even where the underlying listed breach may be absolute liability—shifting the burden onto prosecutors to establish requisite fault elements and inviting contested hearings where lower-level ticket evidence would formerly have sufficed.
Procedural changes—requiring information-based proceedings and making sentencing attendance mandatory—push these matters into a more formal prosecutorial track. That will increase court and prosecutorial workload and could lengthen case timelines.
The mandatory probation measures are designed to combine punishment and rehabilitation (courses plus 50–200 hours of community service focused on safety), but the law leaves course content, administration and oversight to regulation. Effectiveness will depend on regulatory standards and the availability of credible, accessible programs; poorly specified courses or under-resourced placements could reduce rehabilitative value and create compliance disputes.
Finally, the combination of licence suspension tied to probation and stiff sanctions for probation breach (including large fines and extended licence suspensions) creates real collateral consequences for individuals—loss of employment or other livelihood effects—that the bill does not explicitly mitigate.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.