Distracted driving: from HTA ticket to damages

A traffic ticket for distracted driving might seem like the end of the road for a regulatory offence. However, in civil court, it is often just the beginning.

For personal injury lawyers handling motor vehicle accident (MVA) claims in Ontario, that Highway Traffic Act (HTA) conviction carries weight well beyond demerit points and fines, and it can anchor a negligence finding and drive a damages award considerably higher.

In this article, we’ll discuss how it works, from the roadside ticket to the courtroom.

How does distracted driving establish negligence in court?

Every negligence claim in an MVA proceeding rests on four pillars:

• duty of care
• breach of that duty
• causation
• damages

Distracted driving speaks directly to the first two, and where distracted driving is the dominant cause of a collision, it shapes the last two as well.

Duty of care of drivers, distracted or not

Every driver on a Canadian road owes a legal duty of care to other road users, and that duty is not just abstract, but rather it is codified. In Ontario, s. 78 and s. 78.1 of the HTA prohibit the following while driving:

• operating a hand-held communication or electronic entertainment device
• viewing display screens unrelated to driving
• manually programming a GPS while the vehicle is in motion

These prohibitions apply even when a vehicle is stopped at a red light.

How breach of duty of distracted drivers occurs

The legal significance of this is straightforward: when a driver violates these HTA provisions and a collision results, they have breached a statutory duty. That breach does not need to be re-argued from first principles in a civil claim, because the HTA conviction does much of that work automatically.

Three types of distraction are recognised in law and road safety research:

• visual: eyes off the road (e.g., reading a text, checking a GPS screen)
• manual: hands off the wheel (e.g., eating, reaching for an object, holding a phone)
• cognitive: mind off the driving task (e.g., inattention blindness, daydreaming, emotional distraction)

Texting while driving engages all three simultaneously, which is why it draws the most serious legal and regulatory scrutiny. Here’s some data when it comes to distracted driving in Manitoba:

Learn about the provincial laws and deadlines that lawyers and litigants must not miss when it comes to personal injuries proceedings. Check out our article on “Personal injuries proceedings act: Limits, notices, and traps.”

What does an HTA distracted driving conviction prove in civil court?

In Canadian civil litigation, a conviction under the HTA distracted driving provisions functions as powerful prima facie evidence of negligence. While Canadian courts do not use the American term “negligence per se,” the practical effect is similar: a statutory breach is treated as strong evidence that the defendant failed to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver.

This matters enormously at the discovery and summary judgment stages. A defendant who has already been convicted under s. 78 or s. 78.1 of the HTA cannot credibly re-litigate whether they were distracted. The conviction is on the record, and the plaintiff’s lawyer can use it to establish breach without calling independent expert evidence on the standard of care, a significant efficiency in complex MVA litigation.

Penalties for distracted driving

In Ontario, for instance, its penalty structure for distracted driving convictions reflects the seriousness with which the legislature treats these offences:

• first conviction: $615 (out of court); up to $1,000 if fought and lost in court; 3 demerit points; 3-day licence suspension
• second conviction: $615 (out of court); up to $2,000 in court; 6 demerit points; 7-day suspension
• third or subsequent: $615 (out of court); up to $3,000 in court; 6 demerit points; 30-day suspension

A careless driving charge under the HTA is a significant escalation point. It is broader than the specific s. 78 prohibition and captures all forms of distraction, including hands-free device use. A careless driving conviction carries up to $2,000 in fines, six demerit points, a licence suspension of up to two years, and a possible jail term of six months, according to Ontario.ca. In a civil claim, careless driving findings carry proportionally greater weight.

It is worth noting that causation remains a separate step. The conviction establishes breach, but the plaintiff must still satisfy the “but for” test: would the collision have occurred but for the defendant’s distraction? The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed this is the operative causation standard in Smith v. Safranyos, 2018 ONCA 760.

In reality, these penalties do not really deter drivers from being distracted. In the video below, it was found that the number of deaths related to distracted driving has jumped 40 per cent from 2023 to 2024:

Check out Canadian Lawyer’s Special Report on Canada’s Best Personal Injury Law Firms for a list of the country’s leading personal injury boutiques and firms.

Can a regulatory conviction be used as evidence in a civil claim?

The admissibility of regulatory findings, including HTA convictions, in civil MVA proceedings is well established in Ontario. A conviction is a finding of fact by a court of competent jurisdiction. It is not merely an allegation or a police report notation; it is a determination that the defendant committed the prohibited act beyond a reasonable doubt.

In practice, plaintiff’s counsel typically adduces the certificate of conviction in the civil proceeding. Defence counsel cannot re-run the regulatory hearing, though they can challenge whether the distraction was causally connected to the specific collision.

Pieces of evidence to prove distracted driving

Beyond the conviction itself, a range of additional evidence is available to prove distracted driving where no conviction exists or where the charge was withdrawn:

• cell phone records: usage timestamps tied to the moment of impact
• dash camera footage: visual record of driver behaviour immediately before the collision
• witness statements: observations of erratic driving, phone use, or inattention
• crash scene analysis: skid mark patterns, point of impact, or absence of braking evidence

At most, the examination for discovery can be used by personal injury lawyers to extract admissions about distraction. It may include questions about phone use, hands-free activity, passenger interactions, and GPS programming in the period leading up to a collision.

The evidentiary picture is rarely built on a single piece of evidence. It is assembled, and the HTA conviction, where it exists, anchors the entire structure.

How does distracted driving affect the amount of damages?

Where distracted driving is found to be the dominant cause of a catastrophic outcome, the quantum effect on damages is significant and operates across multiple heads of loss. The worse the distracted driving conduct, the more exposed the defendant becomes across each of those heads:

• Economic damages: these cover quantifiable financial harm, such as:
• medical expenses and ongoing rehabilitation costs
• lost income and diminished earning capacity
• future care costs where the injuries are permanent
• Non-economic damages: these are harder to calculate but often represent the largest component of an award in catastrophic injury cases:
• pain and suffering
• loss of enjoyment of life
• psychological harm, including post-traumatic stress disorder and depression

Where a plaintiff’s injuries are catastrophic, Section B accident benefits may be exhausted well before the full cost of care is met. At that point, the civil claim against the negligent driver becomes the primary vehicle for recovery.

Contributory negligence in distracted driving

The dominance of distraction as a cause matters at the contributory negligence stage as well. If the plaintiff was also distracted, whether on a phone, adjusting a GPS, or otherwise inattentive, damages can be apportioned under contributory negligence principles. For defence counsel, establishing partial distraction by the plaintiff is one of the most effective tools for reducing quantum.

Insurers are acutely aware of this dynamic. Where an at-fault driver was distracted, insurers often prefer early settlement to avoid a lengthy trial in which cell phone records and a standing HTA conviction form the evidentiary core.

Distracted driving: personal injury laws on the road

A distracted driving ticket is rarely just a fine. When a collision follows, that HTA conviction travels with the defendant into the civil courtroom, carrying the weight of a proven breach. For personal injury lawyers, understanding how to deploy regulatory findings as civil evidence and connect distraction to causation and quantum is what separates a well-built MVA claim from one that settles for less than it should.

Every case of distracted driving is a potential civil claim, and every one of those claims begins with the same question: was the driver paying attention? When the answer is no, and when the HTA record says so, the road from ticket to damages is far shorter than it looks.

Bookmark Canadian Lawyer’s Personal Injury page for more news, articles, and updates for Canadian legal professionals, such as the laws related to distracted driving.