Under Canadian criminal law, failure or refusal to comply with a police demand after an accident resulting in bodily harmhybrid offence under the Criminal Code and tracked under UCR Code 9270, this charge most often arises when a driver involved in a collision causing injury refuses or fails to provide a breath or bodily sample after a lawful police demand. Because an accident has caused harm to another person, Parliament has attached much harsher maximum penalties than for a simple roadside refusal. This makes refusal comply accident harm Canada
The Legal Definition
Everyone commits an offence under subsection 320.15(1) who, knowing that a demand has been made, fails or refuses to comply, without reasonable excuse, with a demand made under section 320.27 or 320.28; subsection (2) applies this to cases where, at the time of the refusal, the person was involved in an accident resulting in bodily harm to another person.
This definition, set out in section 320.15(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, combines two important ideas:
First, section 320.15(1) creates the basic offence of failing or refusing to comply with a lawful demand made under sections 320.27 or 320.28. Those sections allow police to demand roadside breath samples, evidentiary breath samples at the station, blood samples, or other testing related to impaired driving investigations. Second, subsection (2) increases the seriousness of that same refusal where, at the time of the refusal, the person has been involved in an accident that caused bodily harm to someone else.
In plain English, the law says that if you are in a crash where someone is hurt, and a police officer makes a lawful demand for a breath, blood or other sample, you can be charged if you know the demand has been made and you fail or refuse to comply, unless you have a reasonable excuse. The focus is not only on whether you were actually impaired, but on whether you intentionally or knowingly refused to submit to legally required testing after an injury-causing collision.
Penalties & Sentencing Framework
- Offence type: Hybrid (can proceed by summary conviction or by indictment).
- Maximum penalty on indictment (general refusal): Up to 10 years imprisonment.
- Maximum penalty on indictment where bodily harm is involved: Up to 14 years imprisonment (per s. 320.20).
- Maximum penalty on summary conviction (general refusal): Up to 2 years less a day imprisonment (with elevated punishment rules for bodily harm under s. 320.20).
- Mandatory minimum penalty: None explicitly stated in s. 320.15(2) for refusal where bodily harm occurs, based on the provided text.
Because this is a hybrid offence, the Crown prosecutor chooses whether to proceed by summary conviction (generally used for less serious or first-time matters) or by indictment (reserved for more serious cases). The choice significantly affects the maximum exposure to jail, limitation periods, and procedural rights. When an accident has caused bodily harm, Crown counsel are much more likely to elect by indictment, given the 14-year maximum penalty permitted under section 320.20 of the Criminal Code.
The statutory scheme draws a clear distinction between a simple roadside refusal and a refusal in the context of an injury-causing collision. While a general refusal can carry up to 10 years on indictment, section 320.20 specifically increases the maximum to 14 years where bodily harm results. This signals that Parliament treats a refusal to comply after an accident with harm as comparable in seriousness to impaired driving causing bodily harm. The law aims to prevent drivers from avoiding impaired driving charges and evidentiary consequences simply by declining to co-operate after someone has been injured.
Although the research confirms no explicit mandatory minimum in the text provided for section 320.15(2) in bodily harm situations, sentencing judges still have to consider the broader impaired driving penalty structure, public safety, prior record, the seriousness of the injuries, and whether the refusal appears to have been a deliberate attempt to frustrate an impaired driving investigation. In practice, even without a stated minimum, courts often impose significant jail terms where a refusal comply accident harm Canada scenario involves substantial injury, previous impaired or refusal convictions, or highly aggravating driving behaviour.
Common Defenses
-
Reasonable excuse for non-compliance with the demand
The Criminal Code explicitly states that a person commits the offence only if they fail or refuse to comply “without reasonable excuse“. A central defense in many refusal comply accident harm Canada cases is that the accused had a reasonable excuse for not complying with the demand. In the context of an accident causing bodily harm, reasonable excuses may relate to the person’s medical condition, injuries from the collision, shock or trauma, or other circumstances that made compliance impracticable or unsafe. For example, if the driver was seriously injured and required urgent medical treatment, it may have been impossible to provide a breath or blood sample within the timeframe requested. The defense must be grounded in objective evidence – such as medical records or witness testimony – and the court will assess whether a reasonable person in those circumstances could not have complied.
-
Charter rights violations (validity of the demand)
Another major category of defenses involves alleged violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly under sections 8 (unreasonable search or seizure) and 9 (arbitrary detention). Because a demand for a breath or blood sample is a form of search, police must act lawfully and within the limits set by sections 320.27 and 320.28. If the officer did not have the required legal grounds, if the detention was arbitrary, or if the procedures were not followed correctly, the defense may argue that the demand was not legally valid. If the demand itself was unlawful, then the accused cannot be convicted for failing or refusing to comply with it. Courts will closely analyze the timing of the demand, the grounds for suspecting impairment, the nature of the accident and bodily harm, and whether the accused’s Charter rights were respected (for example, the right to counsel). A successful Charter challenge can result in an acquittal on the refusal charge or the exclusion of key evidence.
-
Lack of knowledge that a demand was made
Section 320.15(1) states that the offence requires that the person, “knowing that a demand has been made“, fails or refuses to comply. This introduces a clear mental element: the accused must have been aware that the officer was making a demand under sections 320.27 or 320.28. In the aftermath of an accident resulting in bodily harm, the scene may be chaotic. The driver may be disoriented, concussed, in shock, or distracted by injured passengers. A defense may arise where the accused genuinely did not understand that a formal demand had been issued – for example, if they never heard it, the officer did not communicate it clearly, or language or cognitive barriers were present. The court will examine evidence from both the officer and the accused to determine whether the Crown has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused actually knew a valid demand was made.
Real-World Example
Imagine a driver on a Canadian highway who loses control of their vehicle and collides with another car. The passenger in the other car suffers a broken leg and a concussion – clear bodily harm. Police arrive, note signs that the driver may have consumed alcohol (such as an odor of liquor and slurred speech), and lawfully demand a breath sample under section 320.27. The driver, upset and shaken, repeatedly refuses to blow into the roadside screening device and later at the police station declines to provide an evidentiary breath sample, despite being physically capable of doing so.
In this scenario, the driver could be charged under section 320.15(2) for failure or refusal to comply with a demand where an accident resulted in bodily harm. The police and Crown would emphasize that there was an accident, another person was injured, the officer had lawful grounds to make the demand, and the driver knew about the demand yet chose not to comply. The court would review whether the demand met the requirements of the Criminal Code, whether there were any reasonable excuses (such as genuine medical incapacity), and whether the driver actually understood that a demand was being made. If convicted, the driver would face sentencing under the elevated penalty regime that permits a maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of causing harm and then refusing legal testing.
Record Suspensions (Pardons)
For a conviction under section 320.15(2) – a hybrid offence – a person may eventually apply for a record suspension (commonly referred to as a pardon) through the Parole Board of Canada once all parts of the sentence (custody, probation, fines, driving prohibitions and any other court orders) are fully completed. While the exact waiting period can vary depending on how the offence was prosecuted and the broader record-suspension framework in force, the research indicates that the timelines generally follow those applicable to hybrid offences: a significant waiting period after sentence completion before someone becomes eligible to apply. The seriousness of a refusal comply accident harm Canada conviction, especially where bodily harm is involved, means that the Parole Board will closely assess risk to the public, evidence of rehabilitation, driving record since the offence, and whether there have been any further impaired, refusal, or related driving incidents.
Related Violations
- Failure to Stop or Remain at Scene of Accident
- Refusal to Provide a Breath Sample
- Impaired Driving