In Canada, impaired driving bodily harm under UCR Code 9227 refers to operating a motor vehicle (or any “conveyance”) while impaired by alcohol, drugs, or a combination of both and causing physical injury to another person. This offence is set out in section 320.14(2) of the Criminal Code. Because it involves actual bodily harm, it is treated far more seriously than a simple impaired driving charge. The offence is classified as a hybrid offence, meaning the Crown prosecutor can choose to proceed either by summary conviction or by indictment, depending on the seriousness of the injuries, the circumstances of the driving, and the accused’s record.
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.”
This wording appears in section 320.14(2) of the Criminal Code. In plain English, the law requires two main elements to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, the person must have committed an offence under section 320.14(1). That base offence covers operating a conveyance while the person’s ability is impaired by alcohol or a drug, or while their blood alcohol concentration or blood drug concentration is over the legal limit. “Conveyance” includes cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, and even aircraft or railway equipment.
Second, while operating that conveyance in an impaired state, the person must have caused bodily harm to another person. “Bodily harm” means any hurt or injury that interferes with the victim’s health or comfort and is more than merely transient or trifling. It does not need to be permanent or life‑threatening, but it must be significant enough to affect the person’s normal state of health or comfort. The Crown must prove a real connection between the impaired driving and the injuries – in other words, the impairment and the way the vehicle was operated must be a significant cause of the bodily harm.
Penalties & Sentencing Framework
- Offence type: Hybrid (can proceed summarily or by indictment).
- Mandatory minimum penalties:
- First offence: $1,000 fine.
- Second offence: 30 days imprisonment.
- Each subsequent offence: 120 days imprisonment.
- Maximum penalties:
- Indictable: Up to 14 years imprisonment.
- Summary: A fine of up to $5,000, or imprisonment for up to 2 years less a day, or both.
For impaired driving bodily harm, Parliament has created a tiered sentencing structure. The mandatory minimums apply nationally and bind sentencing judges. Even on a first offence, where no prior impaired driving convictions exist, the minimum is a $1,000 fine. If the accused has one prior impaired-related conviction anywhere in Canada, the minimum jumps to 30 days in jail. For two or more prior impaired-related convictions, the minimum is 120 days in jail. These are minimums only: in serious bodily harm cases, actual sentences can be much higher.
The offence is a hybrid one. If the Crown proceeds by summary conviction, the maximum penalty is a fine of up to $5,000, or up to two years less a day in jail, or both. Summary proceedings are more common for less severe injuries, relatively low alcohol levels, and where the accused has little or no prior record. If the Crown proceeds by indictment, the maximum penalty is much higher: up to 14 years in prison. Indictable proceedings are usually chosen where the bodily harm is significant (such as broken bones, long hospitalizations, or long-term disability), or where there are aggravating features like excessive speeding, very high blood-alcohol levels, or a significant prior impaired driving record.
In determining a fit sentence within this framework, courts will consider a range of factors identified in the Criminal Code and developed in case law. Key aggravating factors can include: the degree of impairment, the nature and extent of the bodily harm, the number of people injured, driving behaviour (e.g., speeding, racing, ignoring traffic signals), prior drinking and driving or related offences, and whether vulnerable people (such as children) were placed at risk. Mitigating factors can include an early guilty plea, genuine remorse, active steps toward rehabilitation (e.g., treatment programs), lack of prior record, and borderline levels of impairment.
Importantly, provincial and territorial laws also impose administrative consequences such as license suspensions, ignition interlock requirements, and vehicle impoundments. These operate in addition to, not instead of, the Criminal Code penalties. When bodily harm is involved, driving prohibitions ordered by the criminal court are often lengthy, even for first-time offenders, reflecting the strong public safety focus of impaired driving legislation in Canada.
Common Defenses
-
No impairment / no causal link to bodily harm
In an impaired driving bodily harm case, the Crown must prove both that the accused was legally impaired (or over a prescribed alcohol or drug limit under section 320.14(1)) and that this impaired operation caused the bodily harm. A common defense is to challenge the evidence of impairment itself. This can involve questioning the accuracy or reliability of breath or blood test results, the calibration and maintenance of approved instruments, or the qualifications and procedures followed by the testing officer. Defence counsel may also attack the officer’s observations of slurred speech, unsteady gait, odour of alcohol, or poor driving as being equally consistent with fatigue, medical conditions, or shock from the collision rather than impairment. Separately, the defence can dispute causation, arguing that the bodily harm was actually caused by factors unrelated to impairment – for example, an unavoidable collision due to another driver’s sudden and unforeseeable actions, mechanical failure, or dangerous road conditions. If the Crown cannot clearly link the accused’s impaired operation to the injuries, the section 320.14(2) charge may not be made out, even if some form of lesser impaired driving offence might still apply. -
Necessity or lawful excuse
In rare situations, the defence of necessity or a similar lawful excuse may be raised. This argument accepts that the accused drove while impaired but claims it was done to avoid an even greater and imminent harm. For example, a person who has consumed alcohol might drive a severely injured or unconscious person to the hospital because they believe there is no time to wait for an ambulance, or because there is a serious and immediate threat to life that cannot be addressed otherwise. To succeed, the defence generally must show three things: (1) there was imminent peril or danger; (2) there was no reasonable legal alternative to driving while impaired; and (3) the harm caused by driving impaired (including the risk of bodily harm) was proportionate to, or less than, the harm avoided. Courts apply this defence cautiously and narrowly. It will not be accepted simply because driving home after drinking was more convenient or less embarrassing than finding a sober driver or calling a taxi. However, in an impaired driving bodily harm case, if the evidence supports a genuine emergency and a lack of realistic alternatives, necessity or lawful excuse may reduce or negate criminal responsibility. -
Charter rights violations (sections 8 and 10(b))
Impaired driving investigations frequently involve roadside stops, breath demands, and collection of highly incriminating evidence. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure (section 8) and guarantees the right to be informed of, and to consult, counsel without delay (section 10(b)). If police obtain breath or blood samples, or other key evidence, in a manner that violates these rights, the defence may bring a Charter application to have that evidence excluded. Examples include unlawful or unduly prolonged detentions, invalid or improperly given breath or blood demands, failures to promptly advise the detainee of the right to counsel, or unreasonable delays in providing an opportunity to contact a lawyer. If a court finds a Charter breach and concludes that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, critical evidence such as breath readings may be excluded. In an impaired driving bodily harm case, where scientific proof of impairment is central, exclusion of this evidence can severely weaken or even collapse the Crown’s case.
Real-World Example
Imagine a driver consuming alcohol at a party before deciding to drive home. On the way, they lose control of their vehicle due to impaired judgment and collide with another car, resulting in injuries to the occupants. In this scenario, police would likely attend the scene, observe signs of impairment (such as the smell of alcohol, slurred speech, or poor balance), and may administer a roadside screening test followed by an evidentiary breath test at the station. If the test results and officer observations support a finding of impairment under section 320.14(1), and medical reports confirm that the occupants of the other car suffered bodily harm – for example, whiplash requiring treatment, broken bones, or other non-trivial injuries – the driver could be charged under section 320.14(2) for impaired driving causing bodily harm. The Crown would need to show that the impaired operation significantly contributed to the collision and injuries. If convicted, the driver would face at least the mandatory minimum penalties, but depending on the seriousness of the injuries and any prior record, the court might impose a jail sentence well above the minimum and a lengthy driving prohibition.
Record Suspensions (Pardons)
People convicted of impaired driving bodily harm can, in many cases, eventually apply for a record suspension (formerly called a pardon), but only after meeting strict criteria and waiting periods. Because this is a hybrid offence, the applicable waiting period depends on how the Crown proceeded. If the offence was prosecuted by summary conviction, the waiting period is shorter; if it was prosecuted by indictment, the waiting period is longer. In both cases, the clock starts only after the individual has fully completed their sentence, including any term of imprisonment, probation, fines, victim surcharges, and driving prohibitions. During the waiting period, the person must remain crime-free and demonstrate good conduct. A record suspension, if granted, does not erase the conviction but sets it apart from other criminal records in the federal database, which can significantly improve employment, travel, and volunteering prospects. However, because impaired driving bodily harm involves actual injury to another person, the Parole Board of Canada will typically scrutinize these applications carefully, considering the nature of the harm, the person’s remorse, rehabilitation efforts, and behaviour since the offence.
Related Violations
- Operation while impaired by alcohol or drug (base impaired driving offence under section 320.14(1)).
- Dangerous operation causing bodily harm.
- Failure to stop after accident.