Yes No Share to Facebook
Failing to Remain or Return to Scene:
Contrary to Section 200 of the Highway Traffic Act Constitutes a Serious Offence
Last Updated: July 02 2026
Question: Can a Paralegal in Ontario help me defend a failing to remain at the scene (hit and run) charge under s. 200 of the Highway Traffic Act when I left briefly to call for help or deal with an emergency?
Answer: If you’re dealing with a hit-and-run or failing to remain charge in Ontario, Paladin LLP paralegals can help you understand what the prosecution must prove under Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 200 and help assess defences like whether you were actually involved, whether an accident occurred as alleged, and whether there was a reasonable necessity or emergency for leaving briefly. A fast, well-prepared defence can reduce risk of conviction, demerit points, and major insurance impacts, so contact (289) 925-1572 to book a free 1-hour consultation and review your next steps across Ontario.
Defending Hit & Run Charges
A driver who is involved in an accident is required to remain at the scene of the accident or to promptly return to the scene of the accident in circumstances where the driver was unable to stop. Additionally, all drivers involved within an accident must exchange certain information including name, address, licence number, insurance company and policy number, vehicle licence plate number, among other relevant things including the name and address for the owner of the vehicle if such is a person or entity different than the driver.
The Law
When Is a Driver Required to Remain at An Accident Scene
The actual details about the offence of failure to remain at the scene of an accident or failure to return to the scene of an accident, commonly referred to as 'hit and run', are provided at section 200 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 which says:
Duty of person in charge of vehicle in case of accident
200 (1) Where an accident occurs on a highway, every person in charge of a vehicle or street car that is directly or indirectly involved in the accident shall,
(a) remain at or immediately return to the scene of the accident;
(b) render all possible assistance; and
(c) upon request, give in writing to anyone sustaining loss or injury or to any police officer or to any witness his or her name, address, driver’s licence number and jurisdiction of issuance, motor vehicle liability insurance policy insurer and policy number, name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle and the vehicle permit number.
Penalty
(2) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $400 and not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition the person’s licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than two years.
Penalty
What Will Happen If Convicted of Failing to Remain At An Accident
As shown, the failure to remain or return to the scene of an accident is an offence that is treated very harshly with significant penalties that include a fine between four hundred ($400) dollars and two thousand ($2,000) dollars plus victim surcharge per the Victim Fine Surcharges, O. Reg. 161/00 and court cost. Additionally, a driver may be sentenced to a jail term of six (6) months and the licence of the driver may be suspended for two (2) years. Furthermore, the driver receives seven (7) demerit points per the Demerit Point System, O. Reg. 339/94 and may, and likely will, be subjected to very significant insurance rate increases.
Defence Strategy
How to Fight a Traffic Ticket Charge For Failing to Remain At An Accident Scene
The charge of failing to remain at the scene of an accident may be defended in various ways including, where proper to do so, requiring the prosecution to prove, among other things, and beyond a reasonable doubt, that:
- The accused driver was actually involved; and
- The alleged accident actually occurred.
These requirements, among many others, were well summarized within the case of R. v. Found, 2011 ONCJ 167 wherein it was stated:
82. With regard to the charge of failing to remain at the scene of an accident, R. v. Hill 1972 CanLII 670 (ON SC), [1972] 2 O.R. 402, 17 C.R.N.S. 124, 6 C.C.C. (2d) 285 (H.C.) was affirmed in 1973 by the Supreme Court of Canada. That decision reads: “On a charge under the section it is sufficient to prove that two vehicles have touched; proof of knowledge of damage is not required.”
83. R. v. Racimore (1975) 1975 CanLII 1478 (ON SC), 25 C.C.C. (2d) 143 (Ont. H.C.) says failing to remain was held not to be an offence requiring mens rea but where the defendant had no knowledge of contact with the other vehicle, he ought to be acquitted as the actus reus in failing to remain was involuntary.
84. R. v. Huntley [2006] O.J. No. 4549 2006 ONCJ 432 72 W.C.B. (2d) 373 deals both with careless driving and failure to remain at the scene of an accident. Huntley says the prosecution must first prove that an accident involving the defendant's motor vehicle had occurred beyond a reasonable doubt before it can prove that the defendant had committed the offences of failing to remain under s. 200(1)(a).
85. The existence of an accident involving the defendant's motor vehicle is an element of those two offences. In order to prove that the defendant's motor vehicle was involved in an accident the prosecution must prove that the defendant's vehicle had collided – Huntley involved a collision with a pedestrian – and by having done so, may also establish that the defendant had committed the offence of careless driving for the particular circumstances of the case.
86. Huntley states that generally an accident is an event where there is a motor vehicle collision with another vehicle, object, animal or person. Huntley determined someone directly or indirectly involved in an accident has an obligation to remain at or return to the scene of an accident under s. 200(1) (a), regardless of the quantum of damage to property or the degree of personal injury that results from the accident. To prove the charge related to failing to remain it is essential that the prosecution prove there was a motor vehicle accident involving the defendant's vehicle on the date, time and location in question.
87. Huntley states the obligation on the defendant to remain at or immediately return to the scene of the accident under s. 200(1) (a) of the Highway Traffic Act is dependent on whether the prosecution can prove that the defendant was directly or indirectly involved in an accident, or in particular, that he had been driving a vehicle that had collided with another motor vehicle.
In addition to a defence strategy that puts the burden on the prosecution to prove, as shown above, that the driver was involved in the accident, a successful defence may also be achieved via various other strategies that are available even when the prosecution does prove that the accused driver was involved in the alleged accident. These other defence strategies include what is known as the defence of necessity as well as the defence of emergency, among other things; and accordingly, if the defence shows that failing to remain at an accident scene or failing to return to an accident scene was reasonable in the circumstances, then the charge against the driver should be withdrawn by the prosecutor or dismissed by the court.
Conclusion
Leaving the scene of an accident is a very serious offence punishable with a significant fine, victim surcharge, and court cost as well as the possibly of six (6) months in jail. A driver convicted of failing to remain at the scene of an accident will also receive seven (7) demerit points and likely be subjected to significantly higher insurance rates for three (3) years.
Accordingly, if you are accused of failing to remain at an accident scene or failing to return to an accident scene, promptly obtain a professional legal opinion regarding the various defence strategies that are available to you.
NOTE: A significant quantity of inquiries featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically signifies a demand for prompt and proficient legal assistance instead of a particular job title. In Ontario, duly licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation matters. Advocacy, legal interpretation, and procedural expertise are fundamental aspects of this role. Paladin LLP provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at securing effective and advantageous outcomes for clients.
