Bill 79 amends section 148 of Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act by adding two subsections that make it an offence to pass—or attempt to pass—another vehicle in the same direction if doing so would require crossing double solid yellow lines painted on the roadway. The offence carries a set fine of $400 and an allocation of “three or more” demerit points under Ontario Regulation 339/94.
The bill’s effect is procedural and bright‑line: it converts a particular road-marking configuration (double solid yellow centre lines) into a statutory prohibition on passing, expanding enforcement tools available to police and creating predictable administrative penalties for drivers who cross that marking to overtake. That simplicity helps police issue charges quickly, but the text raises practical questions about proof, the scope of “attempt to pass,” and how the new offence will interact with existing careless or unsafe driving provisions.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds subsections (9) and (10) to s.148 of the Highway Traffic Act that prohibit passing or attempting to pass by crossing double solid yellow centre lines and makes contravention an offence punishable by a $400 fine and allocation of demerit points. The bill applies wherever double solid yellow lines are painted on a highway.
Who It Affects
All licensed drivers in Ontario, including passenger vehicle operators and commercial drivers; police services responsible for traffic enforcement; courts that process summary traffic offences; and insurers and licensing authorities that use demerit records. Road authorities and municipal traffic planners will see the practical downstream effects of enforcement and signage placement.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a clear legal basis for penalizing a common risky maneuver, turning a road-marking standard into a statutory offence rather than relying solely on broader careless‑or‑dangerous driving provisions. That clarity can change enforcement patterns, driver behaviour, insurance risk assessments, and administrative processing of traffic offences.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill is short and narrow: it adds a prohibition that targets one specific passing scenario—crossing double solid yellow centre lines to overtake a vehicle going in the same direction. It does not rewrite other passing rules, alter where centre lines may be painted, or change lane configuration authority; it simply creates a standalone offence tied to the presence of double solid yellow lines.
A notable drafting choice is the inclusion of “attempt to pass” as well as actual passing. That wording allows police to charge drivers who start a passing maneuver but abort it before fully crossing or completing the overtake, which broadens the scope of enforceable conduct beyond completed offenses that can be readily observed after the fact.
The bill ties the penalty to a fixed monetary fine ($400) and to demerit points under the existing provincial system, referencing Regulation 339/94 rather than specifying an exact points count beyond “three or more.”Because the law comes into force on Royal Assent, there is no delayed implementation period for administrative preparation. Practically, police will rely on vehicle position relative to roadway markings and officer observation (or dashcam/OC evidence) to prove an offence.
Courts will need to interpret what constitutes requiring the crossing of double solid yellow lines (e.g., momentary wheel over the line, straddling, or a clear cross-over). The new offence sits alongside, not instead of, existing dangerous‑or‑careless driving offences, so prosecutors will choose charges based on evidence, desired penalties, and public safety priorities.Operational impacts are context dependent.
On rural two‑lane highways where double solid lines commonly indicate no‑pass zones, the bill makes an already unsafe practice easier to prosecute. But it also removes some judicial discretion that broader driving-safety offences afford, which could produce stricter outcomes for marginal conduct (for example, a brief encroachment to avoid a hazard).
Enforcement agencies, defense counsel, and administrative bodies (licensing and insurance) will all need to reconcile how this specific offence interacts with the current offence architecture and evidence thresholds.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Bill 79 inserts subsections (9) and (10) into s.148 of the Highway Traffic Act to ban passing that requires crossing double solid yellow centre lines.
The offence covers both completed passes and “attempt to pass,” allowing charges for interrupted or aborted maneuvers as observed by an officer.
Penalties are a fixed $400 fine plus an allocation of “three or more” demerit points under Ontario Regulation 339/94, rather than a purely discretionary sentence.
The Act takes effect immediately on Royal Assent — there is no delayed commencement for agency rule‑making or public education.
The prohibition is strictly tied to painted double solid yellow centre lines; it does not amend other passing rules or alter lane‑marking authority for road agencies.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Bright‑line prohibition on passing across double solid yellow centre lines
This subsection creates the core substantive rule: no driver may pass or attempt to pass another vehicle going the same direction if doing so would require crossing double solid yellow lines. The provision delegates no discretion to officers or drivers—presence of the painted marking plus the passing act is the statutory trigger. Practically, this converts what is often an implied traffic norm into an enforceable statutory standard tied to roadway markings.
Specified penalty: $400 fine and demerit points
Subsection (10) makes contravention a provincial offence punishable by the stated monetary penalty and the allocation of demerit points under Regulation 339/94. The text’s phrase “three or more demerit points” is imprecise: it references the demerit regime rather than fixing an exact number, which may require regulatory or administrative clarification about how many points will be recorded for this exact offence and how that interacts with existing thresholds for suspensions and consequences.
Commencement on Royal Assent
The Act comes into force the day it receives Royal Assent, so enforcement can begin immediately under the amended Highway Traffic Act. The immediate commencement increases the need for police training and public awareness, because drivers will be subject to the new offence as soon as the law becomes active.
Short title
The short title—"Chad’s Law (Enforcing Safer Passing), 2025"—labels the statutory change as a road‑safety measure. The title has no legal effect, but it signals legislative intent and will be used when interpreting the statute’s purpose in policy and legal debates.
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
- Drivers following the rules and other lawful road users — they gain a clearer statutory prohibition against a common and dangerous passing maneuver, which can reduce risky overtaking and associated collisions.
- Vulnerable road users (cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians) — by discouraging risky passing on two‑lane roads, the measure aims to reduce close‑pass incidents and head‑on collision risks that threaten non‑motorists.
- Police and prosecutors — the bright‑line rule simplifies charge selection where double solid yellow lines are present, reducing reliance on broader careless or dangerous driving charges that require higher evidentiary thresholds and subjective assessments.
Who Bears the Cost
- All drivers who cross double solid yellow lines intentionally or during contested maneuvers — they face a $400 fine and demerit points, which can raise insurance premiums and contribute toward license suspension thresholds.
- Commercial fleets and drivers — strictness and lower tolerance for marginal passing could produce more citations for commercial operators on two‑lane highways, raising compliance costs and administrative burdens for carriers.
- Police services and courts — increased use of the new offence may shift enforcement resources to documenting and prosecuting marking‑based offences, and courts may see a rise in summary traffic matters that demand evidentiary analysis of marking location and vehicle position.
- Licensing authorities and insurers — demerit allocations and fines will ripple into licensing decisions and premium calculations, creating administrative work for both public agencies and private insurers.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between clarity and flexibility: the bill imposes a simple, enforceable rule tied to pavement markings to deter a specific dangerous behavior, but that same bright‑line approach removes discretionary judgment that can be critical in real‑world driving situations and creates evidentiary and administrative uncertainties (especially around “attempt to pass” and the unspecified demerit‑point allocation).
The bill’s strength is its simplicity, and that is also its main implementation challenge. A bright‑line rule tied to pavement markings reduces subjectivity but raises proof problems: officers, prosecutors, and judges must be able to establish where a vehicle was relative to the double solid yellow line at the material time.
That often depends on officer notes, dashcam footage, or third‑party video; minor wheel encroachments or straddling may produce contested factual disputes. The inclusion of “attempt to pass” increases the number of chargeable events but also expands ambiguity about when an aborted maneuver becomes an offence.
The phrasing “three or more demerit points” is another loose end. De facto practice will likely fix a specific point allocation, but until administrative guidance or a regulation specifies the exact points, courts and drivers face uncertainty about how the penalty integrates with suspension thresholds and insurance reporting.
There is also a behavioral trade‑off: making passing across double lines an automatic offence may reduce some dangerous passing, but it could also encourage drivers to wait behind slow vehicles in situations where a safe, limited encroachment might reduce collision risk (for example, avoiding debris or an oncoming hazard). That loss of flexibility can create risky secondary behaviors or motivate illegal passing in nearby permissive zones.
Finally, the new offence overlaps with existing careless or dangerous driving offences. Prosecutors will face choices about whether to pursue the marking‑specific charge or broader offences that carry different penalties and persuasive standards.
Over‑reliance on the new offence could shift outcomes (faster processing but potentially lighter or heavier collateral consequences), while under‑use would leave the same enforcement gaps the bill seeks to close.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.