Last Updated: August 28 2026
Can I touch a properly mounted cellphone while driving in Ontario to place or receive a call?
Garrett Legal Services can help Ontario drivers understand when touching a cellphone is permitted during a stop or while placing or receiving a call, because generally Highway Traffic Act rules prohibit holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device while driving, but the permitted exception applies when the phone is securely mounted so it does not move in motion and the driver can see it at a quick glance and reach it without adjusting driving position; see Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 78.1, and Display Screens and Hand-held Devices, O. Reg. 366/09, s. 14(1). In plain terms: if it is just a permitted tap or press to call in the hands-free/mounted setup, you may fit within the exception, but if you’re holding it like a hand-held device or using it for other purposes, it can be treated as distracted driving. If you’ve been charged, a paralegal at Garrett Legal Services can review the facts and help you prepare your defence approach under the applicable exception. Call (519) 857-5170 for guidance.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
Touching a Cell Phone While Driving Exception
A driver of an automobile who is holding or touching a cellphone, or other electronic communication device, while driving is deemed as driving while distracted; however, if the driver can show that the cellphone was properly mounted and was touched solely for the purpose of making or taking a call, such is a permitted exception.
Note: Please contact Garrett Legal Services by phone at: (519) 857-5170 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
The Law
The Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, prescribes the unlawfulness involving a driver who holds or touches a cellphone, among other things, while driving; however, the Display Screens and Hand Held Devices, O. Reg. 366/09, regulation to the Highway Traffic Act provides an exception allowing for the touching of a properly mounted cellphone if exclusively for making or taking of a call. Specifically, the Highway Traffic Act and the Display Screens and Hand Held Devices regulation state:
Hand-held devices prohibited
Wireless communication devices
78.1 (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device or other prescribed device that is capable of receiving or transmitting telephone communications, electronic data, mail or text messages.
Entertainment devices
(2) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held electronic entertainment device or other prescribed device the primary use of which is unrelated to the safe operation of the motor vehicle.
Hands-free mode allowed
(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), a person may drive a motor vehicle on a highway while using a device described in those subsections in hands-free mode.
Exceptions
(a) the driver of an ambulance, fire department vehicle or police department vehicle;
(b) any other prescribed person or class of persons;
(c) a person holding or using a device prescribed for the purpose of this subsection; or
(d) a person engaged in a prescribed activity or in prescribed conditions or circumstances.
Same
(5) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the use of a device to contact ambulance, police or fire department emergency services.
Same
(6) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if all of the following conditions are met:
1. The motor vehicle is off the roadway or is lawfully parked on the roadway.
2. The motor vehicle is not in motion.
3. The motor vehicle is not impeding traffic.
Penalty
(6.1) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable,
(a) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $1,000;
(b) for a first subsequent offence, to a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $2,000; and
(c) for a second subsequent or an additional subsequent offence, to a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $3,000.
Same
(6.2) If a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the Registrar shall suspend his or her driver’s licence,
(a) for a first offence, for three days;
(b) for a first subsequent offence, for seven days; and
(c) for a second subsequent or an additional subsequent offence, for 30 days.
Same
(6.3) An offence under this section committed more than five years after a previous conviction for an offence under this section is not a subsequent offence for the purposes of subsection (6.1) or (6.2).
Regulations
(7) The Minister may make regulations,
(a) prescribing devices for the purpose of subsections (1) and (2);
(b) prescribing persons, classes of persons, devices, activities, conditions and circumstances for the purpose of subsection (4).
Definition
(8) In this section,
“motor vehicle” includes a street car, motorized snow vehicle, farm tractor, self-propelled implement of husbandry and road-building machine.
Exemption for pressing buttons
14. (1) A person may drive a motor vehicle on a highway while pressing a button on a hand-held wireless communication device to make, answer or end a cell phone call or to transmit or receive voice communication on a two-way radio if the device is placed securely in or mounted to the motor vehicle so that it does not move while the vehicle is in motion and the driver can see it at a quick glance and easily reach it without adjusting his or her driving position.
As per the case of R. v. Singh, 2016 ONCJ 618, while the prosecution has the burden of proof to show that the accused person committed an offence beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused person seeking to prove an applicable exception has the lower burden of proof known as balance of probabilities. Specifically, the Singh case states:
17. Section 47(3) of the POA places the burden of proof on a defendant who claims the benefit of an exception. It reads:
The burden of proving that an authorization, exception, exemption or qualification prescribed by law operates in favour of the defendant is on the defendant, and the prosecutor is not required, except by way of rebuttal, to prove that the authorization, exception, exemption or qualification does not operate in favour of the defendant, whether or not it is set out in the information.
18. In R. v. Goleski,[3] the Supreme Court of Canada recently interpreted a Criminal Code section that is virtually identical to section 47(3) of the POA. The Court held that the accused bears a persuasive burden to prove such an exception – that is, on a balance of probabilities.
Conclusion
The touching of an electronic communication device, such as a cellphone, while operating an automobile is prohibited by the Highway Traffic Act; however, an exception applies when merely touching a properly mounted cellphone for the sole purpose of placing a call or receiving a call.
NOTE: A considerable number of online searches for “lawyers near me” or “top lawyer in” tend to indicate a desire for swift, competent legal assistance rather than an inquiry about a specific professional designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that supervises solicitors and are permitted to advocate for clients in outlined litigation areas. Advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise form the core of their responsibilities. Garrett Legal Services provides legal services within its defined licensing scope, focusing on strategic case management, evidence gathering, and compelling representation aimed at securing prompt and positive outcomes for clients.
