Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm in Canada

Operation while impaired causing bodily harm (UCR Code 9223) is a serious Canadian criminal offence that targets situations where a person operates a motor vehicle or other “conveyance” while impaired by alcohol, drugs, or a combination of both, and someone else is physically injured as a result. Under Section 320.14(2) of the Criminal Code, this offence is classified as a hybrid offence, meaning the Crown can choose to proceed either by indictment or by summary conviction depending on the seriousness of the circumstances. Importantly, a person can be convicted of impaired driving causing harm even if their blood alcohol concentration is below the “legal limit” of 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood, as long as their ability to drive was impaired to any degree and that impairment contributed to bodily harm suffered by another person.

The Legal Definition

“Everyone commits an offence who commits an offence under subsection (1) and who, while operating the conveyance, causes bodily harm to another person.”

Subsection (1) includes: “(a) operates a conveyance while the person’s ability to operate it is impaired to any degree by alcohol or a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug; (b) subject to subsection (5), has, within two hours after ceasing to operate a conveyance, a blood alcohol concentration that is equal to or exceeds 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood.”

In plain English, Section 320.14(2) makes it a crime to drive (or otherwise operate a conveyance such as a car, truck, motorcycle, vessel, aircraft, or railway equipment) while impaired, and during that impaired operation cause bodily harm to another person. To be guilty, a person must first commit one of the base offences in subsection 320.14(1)—for example, having their ability to operate the vehicle impaired by alcohol or drugs, or having a prohibited blood alcohol concentration (commonly known as “over 80”) within two hours of driving. On top of that, the impaired operation must be linked to bodily harm suffered by someone else.

“Bodily harm” is defined elsewhere in the Criminal Code as any injury that is more than merely trivial or transient. This can include broken bones, concussions, significant cuts, or any physical injury that interferes with the victim’s health or comfort in a non-trifling way. It does not need to be permanent or life-threatening. The statute (available at Section 320.14 of the Criminal Code) also emphasizes that the impairment can be “to any degree.” That means even slight impairment can be enough, provided the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that this impaired condition existed and that it was connected to the bodily harm.

Penalties & Sentencing Framework

• Mandatory minimum penalties (apply to both summary and indictable):
  • First offence: minimum fine of $1,000.
  • Second offence: minimum of 30 days’ imprisonment.
  • Each subsequent offence: minimum of 120 days’ imprisonment.
• Maximum penalty – Indictable: Imprisonment for a term of up to 14 years.
• Maximum penalty – Summary conviction: Fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for up to two years less a day, or both.

Because operation while impaired causing bodily harm is a hybrid offence, the Crown must decide whether to proceed by indictment or by summary conviction. This choice significantly affects the potential maximum sentence but does not change the statutory mandatory minimums. Where the bodily harm is serious, where there are aggravating factors (such as very high blood alcohol concentration, extreme speeding, or vulnerable victims), or where the accused has a prior record for impaired driving, proceeding by indictment is more likely. Indictable proceedings open the door to a maximum of 14 years in prison and are treated as very serious criminal matters.

If the Crown proceeds by summary conviction, the case typically involves less severe injuries or less serious overall circumstances. Even then, the court can still impose up to two years less a day of jail and/or a fine of up to $5,000. No matter the mode of proceeding, the mandatory minimums apply across the board: a first conviction requires at least a $1,000 fine, a second conviction must include at least 30 days in jail, and any further convictions carry a minimum of 120 days in jail. These minimums reflect Parliament’s intent to treat impaired driving causing harm as a public safety priority.

Sentencing judges also consider a wide range of factors beyond the mandatory minimums. These include the degree of impairment, the extent and nature of the bodily harm, whether multiple people were injured, the presence of children in the vehicle, driving behaviour (such as excessive speeding or running red lights), the offender’s prior record, their remorse, steps taken toward rehabilitation (such as treatment or counselling), and the impact on the victim. A conviction for impaired driving causing harm almost always results in a driving prohibition, which can be lengthy, especially in more serious cases. Even on a first offence, it is common for courts to impose substantial driving bans alongside fines or jail sentences.

Common Defenses

• No impairment: Challenging evidence of impaired ability

  One core element of this offence is that the person’s ability to operate the conveyance was impaired by alcohol, a drug, or a combination of both, or that they committed one of the related “over 80” offences under subsection 320.14(1). A common defense strategy is to argue that the Crown has not proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt. This can involve challenging the officer’s observations (such as slurred speech, unsteady gait, odour of alcohol, or poor driving), questioning the accuracy or reliability of field sobriety tests or drug recognition evaluations, or pointing to alternative explanations (fatigue, medical conditions, nervousness). If breath or blood samples are involved, the defense may scrutinize whether the testing equipment was properly maintained and operated, and whether the results are consistent with the officer’s observations. If the court is left with reasonable doubt about whether the accused was actually impaired at the time of driving, then the base offence under subsection (1) fails—and so does the charge under subsection (2).

• No causation: Arguing the harm was not caused by the impaired operation

  Beyond proving impairment, the Crown must also show that the accused, “while operating the conveyance,” caused bodily harm to another person. This requires a clear causal link between the impaired driving and the injury. A defense focusing on causation may argue that the accident and resulting bodily harm would have occurred even if the driver had not been impaired—for example, if another driver ran a red light, a mechanical failure suddenly occurred, or a pedestrian unexpectedly darted into traffic in a way no reasonable driver could avoid. The key legal question is often whether the impaired operation was a significant contributing cause of the bodily harm. If the defense can raise a reasonable doubt that the impairment played any meaningful role in causing the injuries, the offence under Section 320.14(2) may not be made out, even if some level of impairment is proven.

• Charter rights violation: Excluding evidence from rights breaches

  Another important defense avenue involves alleged breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In impaired driving causing bodily harm cases, police commonly demand breath or blood samples and conduct roadside investigations. If officers violate the accused’s Section 8 right against unreasonable search or seizure—for example, by taking breath or blood samples without lawful authority or without reasonable grounds—or infringe the Section 10(b) right to counsel by delaying or denying access to a lawyer, then key evidence may be vulnerable to exclusion under Section 24(2) of the Charter. Successfully excluding breath or blood test results, or critical observations from an unlawful detention, can cripple the Crown’s case. Without this evidence, the prosecution may be unable to prove either impairment or the required connection to the driving beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

Real-World Example

Imagine someone drives home after a party, feeling slightly tipsy but not overly intoxicated. On the way, they drift briefly out of their lane and collide with another car, injuring the other driver, who suffers a broken arm and whiplash. When police arrive, the driver admits to having a few drinks. Their blood alcohol level, when tested, is just below 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood—the “legal limit”—but the officer notes the smell of alcohol and slight slurring of speech, and witnesses describe the vehicle weaving before the collision.

In this situation, even though the blood alcohol concentration is below the over-80 threshold, the law still allows for a charge of operation while impaired causing bodily harm under Section 320.14(2). The Crown could rely on the officer’s observations, the driving pattern, and the driver’s own admissions to argue that the driver’s ability to operate the vehicle was impaired “to any degree” by alcohol. The broken arm and other injuries clearly meet the standard of bodily harm, and if the evidence shows that the impaired driving contributed in a meaningful way to the crash, the offence is made out. From the court’s perspective, this is a textbook example of impaired driving causing harm: the driver chose to drive after drinking, their ability was affected, and another person suffered non-trivial injuries as a result.

Record Suspensions (Pardons)

A conviction for operation while impaired causing bodily harm will appear on an individual’s criminal record and can have serious long-term consequences for employment, travel, insurance, and professional licensing. In Canada, people who have completed their sentences and remained crime-free for a set period may apply to the Parole Board of Canada for a record suspension (commonly referred to as a “pardon”). For this hybrid offence, the waiting period depends on how the Crown proceeded and the nature of the sentence. Generally, the eligibility period is five years after completion of the entire sentence (including payment of fines, probation, and driving prohibitions) for offences treated as summary conviction matters, and ten years for offences treated as indictable. Given that impaired driving causing bodily harm is often prosecuted by indictment and can involve significant sentences and driving prohibitions, many offenders will face a ten-year wait from completion of sentence before they can even apply. A record suspension is never automatic; the applicant must demonstrate good conduct and a sustained period without new offences.

Related Violations

• Dangerous Operation
• Impaired Driving Causing Death
• Driving Over 80