A Highway Traffic Act (“HTA”) trial may seem like a minor inconvenience, but its implications can extend far beyond immediate penalties such as modest fines. A conviction can have serious consequences in civil litigation. If you are sued after a car accident and the damages awarded against you exceed your insurance policy limits, you may be personally responsible for the remaining amount. This could put your personal assets at risk.

The impact of a prior HTA conviction on subsequent civil litigation can vary significantly, depending on the specifics of the case and how the court evaluates various factors. In some cases, a prior HTA conviction can strongly support a claim of negligence in a subsequent civil action, while in others, it may be entirely disregarded.

 The Evidence Act and Presumptions about Prior Convictions

Under section 22.1 of the Evidence Act, a prior conviction in Canada can serve as presumptive proof of the facts underlying an offence. However, this presumption can be rebutted by “evidence to the contrary.” Specifically, this section states:

22.1 (1) Proof that a person has been convicted or discharged anywhere in Canada of a crime is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the crime was committed by the person, if,

1. no appeal of the conviction or discharge was taken and the time for an appeal has expired; or
2. an appeal of the conviction or discharge was taken but was dismissed or abandoned and no further appeal is available. 

The Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that section 22.1 applies to provincial offences such as HTA convictions.^[1]

A Conviction Does Not Automatically Prove Negligence

It’s crucial to understand that a prior conviction only proves the facts directly related to that conviction, and that these facts are not always sufficient to prove negligence. For example, in a recent case, a builder was convicted under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to install a guardrail on a staircase.^[2] While the conviction proved that the guardrail was not installed, it did not automatically prove the builder was negligent. The court found that additional evidence was needed to establish the other elements of negligence.

What is Evidence to the Contrary?

"Evidence to the contrary" under s. 22.1 refers to evidence that contradicts the facts essential to the prior conviction. For example, if a driver convicted of driving without insurance can provide proof that they were insured at the time, this would be “evidence to the contrary.”^[3] This provision allows a party to present new information that may challenge the presumed facts underlying the conviction. However, the court must still consider whether it is appropriate to allow a party to present this evidence.

The court imposes rules about when “evidence to the contrary” can be introduced. This allows the court to preserve efficiency and avoid unnecessary “re-litigation.” Re-litigating simply means challenging the legal findings or consequences of an earlier conviction in a new legal context, such as a civil case.

"The Abuse of Process" Doctrine: How It Can Block Re-Litigation Even with “Evidence to the Contrary'"

The “abuse of process” doctrine is a legal principle that prevents someone from misusing the court system, such as by trying to re-argue an issue that has already been decided. The doctrine limits the use of “evidence to the contrary” in new cases.^[4] The court will carefully consider several factors to determine whether re-litigation is appropriate:

1. Fraud or Dishonesty: Whether the original proceeding was tainted by fraud or dishonesty.
2. New Evidence: Whether fresh, previously unavailable evidence conclusively undermines the original result.
3. Fairness: Whether fairness dictates that the original outcome should not be binding in the new context.^[5]

For example, imagine you’re involved in a car accident, and your representative entered a guilty plea for you in HTA court without explaining the consequences or without your consent. In this case, the original conviction might meet the first criterion for re-litigation, as the prior proceeding was tainted. Additionally, the fairness factor could support challenging the conviction.

Now imagine that you were convicted of running a red light just before colliding with another vehicle, but new video evidence shows you in fact did not run the light. This new evidence could meet the second criterion and potentially allow a party to contest the conviction.

Additional Factors the Court May Consider

Several other factors may influence the court’s decision to permit a challenge to a conviction:

Involvement in the Original Trial: A party that was not involved in the initial trial is more likely to be allowed to challenge a prior conviction.^[6] For instance, in Intact v. Federated, an insurer that played no part in the original trial was allowed to present evidence that the driver was insured at the time of the incident.

• Contributory Negligence in Subsequent Cases: In some cases, even if the abuse of process doctrine prevents re-litigation, the court may allow evidence of contributory negligence by another party. In Caci v. Dorkin, the trial judge allowed evidence of a separate driver’s contributory negligence, even though the defendant’s dangerous driving conviction was not re-litigated.^[7]
•  
• The Stakes of the Previous vs. Current Case: If the prior conviction had relatively low stakes but the subsequent civil litigation involves much higher stakes, the court may be more inclined to allow a conviction to be challenged. In Becamon, the defendant was convicted of a minor offence with minimal consequences, but in the subsequent civil trial, the stakes were much higher, which helped the court justify revisiting the earlier conviction. ^[8]

Conclusion

Understanding how a prior HTA conviction can impact your civil litigation case is essential, as it can have significant consequences on both liability and damages. While a prior conviction may serve as presumptive proof of certain facts, its application in a civil case will depend on various factors, including the availability of "evidence to the contrary" and whether re-litigation is allowed. The abuse of process doctrine provides an important safeguard to prevent misuse of the court’s process, ensuring that the justice system remains efficient and fair.  

If you're facing civil litigation after an HTA conviction, it is crucial to seek legal advice to navigate these complexities and to protect your interests. If you've been in an accident and have a question, contact Campisi for a free, no obligation consultation.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to be a substitute for professional legal counsel. If you require legal advice regarding your specific situation, you should consult with a qualified legal professional.

[1] Andreadis v. Pinto, 2009 CanLII 50220 (ONSC); Intact Insurance Company v. Federated Insurance Company of Canada, 2017 ONCA 73 (CanLII) (“Intact v Federated”) at para 18.

[2] Horner Estate v. Paramsothy, 2016 ONSC 3624.

[3] Intact v Federated at para 19.

[4] Ibid at para 21.

[5] Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63 ("CUPE") at para 52.

[6] Intact v Federated at para 34.

[7] Caci v Dorkin, 2008 ONCA 750.

[8] Becamon v Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2009 ONCA 113.