So just a reminder that this is NOT legal advice, and is just my opinion. You need make sure anything I say is actually true and you may want to seek out a lawyer/paralegal (print out this thread and take it with you though and see what they say about it).
The police have up to 6 months to lay a charge for a provincial offences under the HTA. I am not sure if there is a time limit for criminal charges.
The article below breifly explains the two possible charges the police could lay:
PROVINCIAL OFFENCE CHARGE of Fail to Remain at Sceen of Accident
CRIMINAL CHARGE of Fail to Stop at Scene of Accident
http://www.ontariotraffictickets.com/tr ... to-remain/ Now back to Mugwug's comments...
Legal advice may be something you want to consider. Let's suppose that you get legal advice and they tell you to report it, or you feel guilty enough that you want to report it. In either of these cases I would get your daughter to write a letter as to what happened. But I would open the letter with something along the following:
"I understand that I am required by law to report what happened, so the following statement is not voluntary. Here is what happened bla bla bla"
The reason you want to do this, is that the statement can then NOT be used against her in court. The common law confessions rule prevents statements you made from being used against you IF they were not given voluntarily. If you make a voluntary statement then it CAN be used against you. If they try to use your statement against you, you can then object and say it was not voluntary therefore it is not admissable. At this point the prosecution has to prove that it was voluntary (see case law below). If your statement clearly says that you are doing it because the law requires you to do it and that it is not a voluntary statement, then the prosecution can not prove that.
Common Law Confessions Rule
Paragraphs [40],[42],[43] of R. v. Soules, 2011 ONCA 429
Paragraph [9] of R. v. Slopek 1974 OJ No 826
Paragraph [90] of R. v. Grant, [2009] 2 SCR 353, 2009 SCC 32
R. v. Grant, [2009] 2 SCR 353, 2009 SCC 32
[90] This case concerns s. 24(2). However, it is important to note at the outset that the common law confessions rule, quite apart from s. 24(2), provides a significant safeguard against the improper use of a statement against its maker. Where a statement is made to a recognized person in authority, regardless of whether its maker is detained at the time, it is inadmissible unless the Crown can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it was made voluntarily. Only if such a statement survives scrutiny under the confessions rule and is found to be voluntary, does the s. 24(2) remedy of exclusion arise. Most commonly, this will occur because of added protections under s. 10(b) of the Charter.
Can they still charge your daughter even if they can not use the statement she gives? Yes they can BUT how were they able to identify her as the driver prior to the statement? So again if the statement is not admissable then they can not use to lay the charge either.
Let's say you still end up in court with a charge. The other driver must show up to identify your daughter. If she is charged as a provincial offence under the HTA then she is not required to be in court and if the other actually driver shows up and your daughter is not there, then she can not be idetified. If she is charged under crimimal code then she does have to be court, but there is still a chance the other driver won't show up.