Stunt Driving on private property? | GTAMotorcycle.com

Stunt Driving on private property?

Wingboy

Well-known member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Listened to the tail end of an interview on Newstalk 1010.I think it was with Kerry Schmidt of the opp.
A burnout or donut in your own driveway can lead to a stunting charge. WTF?
 

GreyGhost

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Listened to the tail end of an interview on Newstalk 1010.I think it was with Kerry Schmidt of the opp.
A burnout or donut in your own driveway can lead to a stunting charge. WTF?
The way I understand it is if you don't have a physical barrier between you and the public roads, charges are fair game. Put a gate/chain/(caution tape?) across the end of your driveway and you should just get bylaw tickets for the burnout.
 

Evoex

The God
Site Supporter
But, that doesn't mean drivers can do anything in Ontario parking lots and get away scot-free.

"If I'm driving erratically in a snow-covered parking lot and I strike a parked car because of my carelessness, the HTA doesn't apply – but the criminal code does," Leon said. "The criminal code applies everywhere."


My very basic understanding is the HTA cannot be applied on private property, period. However probably a somewhat grey area where bylaw/criminal code overlaps with HTA
 

GreyGhost

Well-known member
Site Supporter
My very basic understanding is the HTA cannot be applied on private property, period.
According to this lawyer, that statement may not be correct.


The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently addressed the breadth of the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) in the January 21, 2013 decision of R v Hajivasilis 2013 ONCA 27

It should be noted that this case worked its way through the judicial system by first appearing in front of a Justice of the Peace, then to a Judge sitting at the Ontario Court of Justice, and finally to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal convened a special five justice panel to address the important legal issues under discussion. In addition, the Court appointed a lawyer to assist the respondent with the important legal considerations being discussed.

The case itself involved an accident that occurred in a private supermarket parking lot. Although the accident caused significant damage, the respondent did not report the accident and was charged pursuant to so 199(1) of the HTA.

This decision brings clarity to the interpretation of the Highway Traffic Act. Unfortunately, there has been a widespread (mis)understanding that the Provincial law (as compared to Criminal Law), the Highway Traffic Act, does not apply to private property. After this decision, it is quite plausible that that notion is incorrect. Since ignorance of the law is not a defence, this decision could have wide ranging ramifications related to insurance coverage and injuries.
 
Last edited:

JFD

Well-known member
There may be an element of danger that could result to the public from doing those things on your driveway - burnout goes out of control and bike flies into the roadway or someone...
 

Scuba Steve

Well-known member
Site Supporter
According to this lawyer, that statement may not be correct.


The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently addressed the breadth of the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) in the January 21, 2013 decision of R v Hajivasilis 2013 ONCA 27

It should be noted that this case worked its way through the judicial system by first appearing in front of a Justice of the Peace, then to a Judge sitting at the Ontario Court of Justice, and finally to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal convened a special five justice panel to address the important legal issues under discussion. In addition, the Court appointed a lawyer to assist the respondent with the important legal considerations being discussed.

The case itself involved an accident that occurred in a private supermarket parking lot. Although the accident caused significant damage, the respondent did not report the accident and was charged pursuant to so 199(1) of the HTA.

This decision brings clarity to the interpretation of the Highway Traffic Act. Unfortunately, there has been a widespread (mis)understanding that the Provincial law (as compared to Criminal Law), the Highway Traffic Act, does not apply to private property. After this decision, it is quite plausible that that notion is incorrect. Since ignorance of the law is not a defence, this decision could have wide ranging ramifications related to insurance coverage and injuries.
So can you be charged for stunting on a racetrack now, this flies in the face of the recent ruling that if you get on private property before being pulled over you can't be charged with impaired anymore

Sent using a thumb maybe 2
 

GreyGhost

Well-known member
Site Supporter
So can you be charged for stunting on a racetrack now, this flies in the face of the recent ruling that if you get on private property before being pulled over you can't be charged with impaired anymore

Sent using a thumb maybe 2
The case in that post was 2013. No idea on progress since then. DD case was much more recent. That's why lawyers get the big bucks, they have to stay on top of all this crap 5ibknow what is still applicable. I liked the 2013 case as it was given a lot of attention and scrutiny.

I cant the DD precident holding up. It flies in the face of reason.
 

TwistedKestrel

King of GTAM
Site Supporter
I am 99% sure that Wingboy's statement is correct, or if it isn't then at least many cops interpret it that way and will consider it within their power to charge you. Conviction won't matter because you'll already be screwed
So can you be charged for stunting on a racetrack now, this flies in the face of the recent ruling that if you get on private property before being pulled over you can't be charged with impaired anymore

Sent using a thumb maybe 2
HTA 172 does specifically exclude "an event held on a closed course with the written approval of the road authority having jurisdiction over the highway" but again, that doesn't stop cops from charging you anyway. I think it would be less likely as I think most of them recognize it would be seen as frivolous, but some may not care
 

GreyGhost

Well-known member
Site Supporter
I am 99% sure that Wingboy's statement is correct, or if it isn't then at least many cops interpret it that way and will consider it within their power to charge you. Conviction won't matter because you'll already be screwed

HTA 172 does specifically exclude "an event held on a closed course with the written approval of the road authority having jurisdiction over the highway" but again, that doesn't stop cops from charging you anyway. I think it would be less likely as I think most of them recognize it would be seen as frivolous, but some may not care
On a proper track with controlled access, I dont know how it would work. Is gate attendant legally required to let cop in to wreak havoc? Seems like a kind of thing a warrant should be needed for. This good quickly annihilate parking lot autocross though (assuming that still exists in ontario).
 

TwistedKestrel

King of GTAM
Site Supporter
It's not new, this problem has existed since HTA 172 was made law i.e. it's not something cops have actually been doing. It's just that nothing really stops them if they wanted to
 

raginduck

Well-known member
Site Supporter
So can you be charged for stunting on a racetrack now, this flies in the face of the recent ruling that if you get on private property before being pulled over you can't be charged with impaired anymore

Sent using a thumb maybe 2

That ruling, on the DD/private property incident, is not that cut n dry. You also have to consider the law changes with DD and breathalyzers since that ruling... unlikely that ruling matters anymore since the law changes.
IMO... that ruling as more to do with probable cause and reason than the actual DD... and they dont need cause to request a breath test anymore.
 

GreyGhost

Well-known member
Site Supporter
That ruling, on the DD/private property incident, is not that cut n dry. You also have to consider the law changes with DD and breathalyzers since that ruling... unlikely that ruling matters anymore since the law changes.
IMO... that ruling as more to do with probable cause and reason than the actual DD... and they dont need cause to request a breath test anymore.
That ruling was in June 2021. I don't think a lot has changed since then.

 

Hardwrkr13

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Look up the changes involved in the upcoming MOMS Act coming into effect.
 

nobbie48

Well-known member
Site Supporter
In my personal opinion: Just because you own a piece of property it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want on it.

If you own a large enough property you could set up a gun or bow and arrow range but doing the same thing in a city yard would be considered dangerous unless extreme measures were used to protect bystanders.

Doing a burnout in your 40 foot driveway with the only safeguard being caution tape or plastic pylons could easily get one a dangerous driving conviction which makes HTA-172 a cakewalk. Didn't some Cannonball Run competitors get busted a few years back for doing donuts in a private parking lot in Niagara Falls?

If it's a criminal charge, dangerous driving, the police could seize evidence, the cars, and I suppose hold them until trial.

The police use their instincts, good or bad, to determine how to handle the situation. Theoretically the basis of a charge would be "Would a reasonable person in the risk area expect the danger?"

A crowded costume party and two attendees dressed as Samurai warriors start to sword fight with real katanas....

If children are around would they understand the danger?

How far do you take it?

I was at a fall fair years ago and was watching the mini tractor pull, highly modified lawn tractors.

One tractor blew its motor and a piece flew dangerously close to spectators.

If someone was hurt there would likely be lawsuits as there were no specific waivers.

Everything is fun until someone gets hurt.
 

Top Bottom