Understanding Ontario’s MOMS Act: Legislative Intent, Stunt Driving, and How We Argue for Fairness


Stunt driving law in Ontario has changed dramatically since the introduction of the Moving Ontarians More Safely (MOMS) Act. The stakes are now higher than ever: a conviction under section 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act usually means a mandatory one‑year licence suspension, with life‑altering consequences for many drivers. At NextLaw, legal representative Jon Cohen focuses exclusively on stunt driving cases across Ontario and approaches these matters by going beyond the surface level of the charge, and into the logic, purpose, and spirit behind the MOMS Act itself.


This deeper understanding of the law is not just academic. It directly shapes how submissions are made to prosecutors, how proportionality arguments are framed, and how first‑time offenders are distinguished from the “worst offenders” the legislature was targeting.


What the MOMS Act Actually Changed for Stunt Driving


The MOMS Act introduced a harsher and more structured penalty regime for stunt driving in Ontario. It increased roadside suspensions, vehicle impoundment periods, and most importantly, created a mandatory one‑year licence suspension on conviction for a stunt driving offence under section 172(1) in many circumstances. The regime is designed to send a clear deterrent message and to remove high‑risk drivers from the roads for extended periods.


But the MOMS Act did more than simply raise penalties. It built an escalating structure: penalties become more severe for repeat offences, with significantly longer suspensions and, in some cases, lengthy or lifetime driving bans. That structure reveals that the legislature intended to distinguish between a first‑time offender and a driver who persistently engages in stunt driving after prior sanctions. Understanding that internal logic is crucial when arguing that a particular case does not fall within the “target group” the Act was truly aimed at.

Legislative Focus: The “Worst Offenders” and Repeat Drivers


When the MOMS Act was debated, the government did not frame it as a broad, unfocused crackdown on every person who ever drove too fast. The language used in those debates focused on “the worst offenders” and “the worst actors on our roads” — drivers whose conduct is persistently dangerous, who have already been caught and punished, yet continue to engage in stunt driving behaviour.


Data about stunt driving suspensions was highlighted to justify the new law, particularly figures showing that a small but significant minority of drivers had multiple suspensions within a relatively short period. That group — repeat, recidivist offenders — was presented as the core problem the MOMS Act was designed to address. In other words, the legislature recognized that not all stunt driving offenders are the same. Some are chronic, high‑risk drivers; others are first‑time, isolated cases.


At NextLaw, this legislative history is not treated as background noise. It is central to how submissions are framed. If Parliament’s own data and language show that the primary concern was chronic repeat offenders, then it is legitimate to ask whether a given client — especially a young, first‑time driver with a clean record — truly belongs in the same penalty box as the recidivist group that drove the reform.


Pandemic Context: Why the Law Became So Severe


Another key part of the story is timing. The MOMS Act was introduced in 2021, in the midst of the COVID‑19 era. During the pandemic, Ontario experienced a documented spike in stunt driving, street racing, and extreme speeding on unusually empty roads. With fewer vehicles on the highways, some drivers began treating these roadways like racetracks. Officials publicly expressed concern that risky driving had intensified during this period and that existing penalties were not adequately deterring dangerous conduct.


This pandemic context matters. The law was crafted during an exceptional time when stunt driving was associated with near‑empty highways and highly aggressive racing behaviours. When a case arises years later, in ordinary traffic conditions and under very different personal circumstances, it is legitimate to ask whether automatically applying the full force of pandemic‑era penalties truly reflects the spirit of the law. In submissions at NextLaw, this context is used to differentiate clients whose conduct bears little resemblance to the street‑racing scenarios that motivated the legislative crackdown.


The Internal Tension in the MOMS Penalty Structure


The MOMS Act introduced a mandatory one‑year suspension for a first qualifying stunt driving conviction in many situations, and then layered escalating suspensions for second and third offences. On paper, this shows a clear intention: proportional, graduated punishment that becomes more severe as a driver continues to offend.


However, in practical application, this structure creates tension. The same base one‑year suspension can fall on:


• A first‑time offender with a clean record who made a serious, isolated mistake; and


• A high‑risk, repeat offender whose pattern of conduct was the precise problem the government identified when it introduced the law.


If everyone receives the same initial devastating consequence, the line between the “worst offenders” and the majority of first‑timers collapses. At NextLaw, this tension is turned into a principled argument: the existence of escalating penalties implies that the most severe use of the regime should be reserved for those who actually match the recidivist profile that prompted the reform, not for every first‑time driver who happens to cross a numerical speed threshold.


How NextLaw Uses Legislative Intent in Stunt Driving Submissions


In representing clients on stunt driving charges across Ontario, legal representative Jon Cohen approaches each case with two parallel frameworks: the technical legal analysis and the legislative‑intent analysis.


Technical Weaknesses and Evidentiary Issues


The first question is always whether the Crown can actually prove the offence. In many cases, there are issues with speed‑measurement devices, testing records, officer notes, or procedural compliance. For example, when there is no second test time recorded for a LiDAR unit between its initial check and a later traffic stop, that gap can raise serious questions about the reliability of the alleged speed. In such situations, the position is straightforward: the appropriate outcome may be complete withdrawal because the evidence is materially deficient.


However, even when the Crown insists on proceeding or when a client wishes to explore resolution rather than a full trial, the analysis does not stop at technicalities.


Proportionality and the Spirit of the MOMS Act


The next layer is proportionality: does imposing a mandatory one‑year suspension on this particular person actually reflect what Parliament had in mind? When presenting submissions to prosecutors, NextLaw emphasizes:


• The focus on repeat offenders and “worst actors,” based on what was actually said in debate.


• The pandemic context that fueled an unusually severe penalty structure.


• The graduated nature of the penalties, which implies that first‑time and repeat offenders were never meant to be treated as indistinguishable.


This is then tied directly to the client’s profile: clean record, absence of prior suspensions, absence of other dangerous behaviour (no collision, impairment, or aggressive manoeuvres), strong remorse, and significant collateral consequences (employment, family responsibilities, immigration context, caregiving duties, and so on). The message is not that stunt driving is trivial; rather, it is that the blunt application of the harshest tools of the MOMS regime to every first‑time offender goes beyond what the legislature truly intended.


Using Discretion: Why Charge Reduction Can Still Meet the Law’s Objectives


One of the most important points made in submissions is that prosecutorial discretion is built into the system for a reason. Even in a world of mandatory minimum suspensions, prosecutors are not obliged to pursue the maximum possible consequence in every file. They can amend a stunt driving charge to a lesser offence such as careless driving or a high speeding offence in appropriate cases.


From the perspective of legislative intent, a carefully negotiated amendment can still achieve:


• General deterrence: the public sees that serious speeding is prosecuted and results in a conviction.


• Specific deterrence: the driver experiences real financial and insurance consequences, and a strong legal record that discourages future misconduct.


• Public safety: the court can consider the circumstances and impose a penalty that reflects the risk actually posed, rather than defaulting to an automatic one‑year driving ban.


At NextLaw, the argument is framed this way: by exercising discretion to amend in suitable cases, prosecutors give effect to the proportional, graduated approach Parliament built into the MOMS Act, instead of expanding the harshest consequences beyond the repeat, high‑risk group that prompted the reform.


Why Specialization in Stunt Driving Matters


Stunt driving is not just “a speeding ticket with higher numbers.” It sits at the intersection of:


• Highway Traffic Act procedure and evidentiary rules.


• Legislative history and policy justifications.


• Practical realities of licence loss, employment, insurance, and family responsibilities.


By focusing exclusively on stunt driving cases, legal representative Jon Cohen has developed a niche practice that treats each file as a combination of technical defence issues and principled, policy‑driven submissions. Prosecutors quickly recognize when they are dealing with someone who understands not just the text of section 172(1), but also the context, the MOMS Act debates, the data that drove reform, and the human impact of a one‑year licence suspension.


This depth of understanding is what allows NextLaw to present nuanced, credible submissions that go beyond “please be lenient” and instead engage with what the law was actually meant to do — and, just as importantly, what it was not meant to do.


A Principled Approach to Protecting Clients and Respecting the Law


The goal in every stunt driving case is twofold: protect the client’s future as far as the law allows, and respect the genuine public safety concerns that led to the MOMS Act. The way to do both is to take the law seriously at every level — technical, legislative, and practical — and to insist that severe tools like mandatory one‑year suspensions be used in the way Parliament truly intended.


For drivers facing stunt driving allegations in Ontario, having a legal representative who understands not only the wording of the MOMS Act but its underlying justification and spirit can make a critical difference. At NextLaw, that is the foundation of how stunt driving submissions are prepared and presented, case after case, across the province. https://www.nextlaw.ca/?p=32517