Can You Sleep While Your Car Is Driving Itself? The Legal Risks of Autonomous Driving Technology in Canada

September 05, 2026, Kitchener, Ontario

Posted by: Robert Deutschmann, Personal Injury Lawyer

A vehicle that can steer, accelerate and brake by itself may look like it is capable of driving without you. But that does not mean you can go to sleep.

Recent incidents involving drivers apparently sleeping behind the wheel of Tesla vehicles have once again raised an important question: who is legally responsible when a vehicle is operating in an automated driving mode?

For Canadian drivers, the answer is generally straightforward. The technology may assist with driving, but where the system requires human supervision, the driver remains responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle.

Recent Canadian incidents involving sleeping Tesla drivers

The issue is not hypothetical.

In September 2026, B.C. Highway Patrol reported that a 45-year-old Tesla owner had been ticketed after witnesses allegedly observed her sleeping behind the wheel while travelling on Highway 1 near North Vancouver.

The incident occurred on August 11. Two witnesses reported the vehicle to police, and a passenger recorded video that appeared to show the driver's eyes closed. Police subsequently located the registered owner and issued a ticket for driving without due care and attention.

Only weeks later, another Tesla driver was stopped near Langley, British Columbia. According to police, the driver appeared to have his eyes closed with both hands off the steering wheel. He was issued tickets for driving without due care and attention and failing to produce a driver's licence.

These incidents prompted a blunt warning from B.C. Highway Patrol: drivers cannot simply rely on self-driving technology and go to sleep.

Is your car actually “self-driving”?

This is where terminology can become misleading.

Many modern vehicles offer sophisticated Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). These systems can perform some driving functions, including steering, braking, accelerating and maintaining a vehicle's position in a lane.

But driver assistance is not the same thing as autonomous driving.

Transport Canada explains that active driving assistance systems are not automated driving systems. The driver must remain actively involved. Systems marketed under names such as Autopilot, Super Cruise and other similar names may provide substantial assistance, but that does not necessarily mean the vehicle can operate independently of a human driver.

Transport Canada's framework distinguishes between six levels of driving automation. Levels 1 and 2 provide driver assistance; Level 3 and above involve increasingly automated driving functions. Transport Canada states that vehicles currently available in Canada span Levels 0 through 2.

Ontario similarly explains that Level 1 and Level 2 vehicles require the driver to remain in control. Higher levels of automation may be tested under Ontario's automated vehicle framework, but that is different from a consumer simply purchasing a fully autonomous vehicle and being permitted to sleep while it drives.

The important distinction

“The car can drive itself for a period of time” does not necessarily mean “the car is legally capable of driving without a driver.”

That distinction can become critically important after a collision.

Why sleeping is particularly dangerous

Driver-assistance systems are designed to operate within defined conditions. They can encounter situations they are unable to interpret or manage appropriately.

Consider:

• unexpected road construction;
• lane closures;
• faded or confusing road markings;
• emergency vehicles;
• pedestrians or cyclists;
• debris on the highway;
• unusual traffic movements;
• severe weather;
• poor visibility; or
• a situation requiring immediate human judgment.

Transport Canada specifically advises drivers to remain alert and engaged when driver-assistance technologies are activated. The government notes that these systems have limitations and are intended to assist rather than replace the driver.

Some vehicles also use driver-monitoring technology to detect whether a driver is paying attention. These systems may monitor eye movement, head position, steering or other indicators of driver engagement. But even driver-monitoring technology is intended as a safety aid—not as permission to sleep.

This has happened in Ontario before

The recent B.C. incidents are not the first Canadian examples.

In September 2022, video circulated showing a Tesla driver apparently asleep while travelling on the QEW near St. Catharines.

The driver appeared to have his eyes closed while the vehicle travelled at highway speeds. Toronto Police and the OPP emphasized that drivers remain responsible for the safe operation of their vehicles, even when automated driving assistance is operating.

The incident attracted considerable public attention because it illustrated the danger of assuming that an automated system eliminates the need for an attentive driver.

There was an even more dramatic incident in Alberta in 2020.

RCMP charged a 20-year-old British Columbia man with dangerous driving after a Tesla was observed travelling on Highway 2 near Ponoka at speeds reaching approximately 150 km/h. Police reported that both front seats appeared to be fully reclined and that both occupants appeared to be asleep.

These incidents illustrate a continuing problem: the technology may encourage drivers to become less engaged precisely when they need to remain most attentive.

What does Ontario law say?

Ontario's Highway Traffic Act contains a broad careless-driving provision.

Section 130 provides that a person commits the offence of careless driving when they operate a vehicle without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other people using the highway. The legislation also specifically addresses conduct that may limit a driver's ability to prudently adjust to changing circumstances.

That is highly relevant to the sleeping-driver scenario.

A driver cannot necessarily avoid responsibility by arguing:

“The car was driving itself.”

If the technology requires the driver to supervise the vehicle, intentionally going to sleep may be powerful evidence that the driver failed to meet the required standard of care.

What happens if someone is injured?

For personal injury claims, the consequences can be much more significant than a traffic ticket.

If a driver falls asleep while using a driver-assistance system and causes a collision, the injured person may have a claim for compensation arising from injuries such as:

• traumatic brain injuries;
• spinal cord injuries;
• fractures;
• chronic pain;
• psychological injuries;
• loss of income;
• future loss of earning capacity;
• rehabilitation and attendant-care costs;
• housekeeping and home-maintenance expenses; and
• future care needs.

The circumstances surrounding the operation of the vehicle may also become important evidence when determining liability.

Could the vehicle manufacturer be responsible?

Possibly—but it should never be assumed.

A collision involving automated or semi-automated technology can raise additional questions.

For example:

• What driving system was activated?
• What was the system designed to do?
• What limitations did the manufacturer identify?
• What warnings were provided to the driver?
• Was the driver-monitoring system functioning properly?
• Did the vehicle provide adequate warnings before disengaging?
• Did a software or hardware malfunction contribute to the collision?
• Was the driver using the technology in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions?
• Was the vehicle operating within the conditions for which the system was designed?

These questions can require detailed investigation.

Modern vehicles can generate extensive electronic data. Depending on the vehicle and circumstances, relevant evidence may include vehicle event data, system logs, camera footage, driver-monitoring information, dashcam recordings, cellphone records, witness statements and police evidence.

Preserving this evidence can therefore be extremely important following a serious collision.

Technology does not eliminate the driver's duty

Driver-assistance technology can provide substantial safety benefits. It can help maintain lane position, maintain following distance, warn of hazards and, in some circumstances, intervene to prevent or reduce the severity of a collision.

But assistance is not the same as responsibility being transferred from the driver to the vehicle.

Transport Canada's guidance is particularly clear: these systems are designed to help the driver and cannot replace the driver's attention and judgment.

Until truly autonomous vehicles are legally permitted to operate without human supervision in the circumstances involved, drivers should assume that they remain responsible for what their vehicle does.

What should you do if you are tired?

The safest solution is remarkably low-tech.

Stop driving.

Pull into a safe location, rest, change drivers or arrange another way to reach your destination.

Do not attempt to turn a driver-assistance system into a substitute driver by reclining your seat, closing your eyes or assuming the vehicle will handle whatever happens on the road.

Deutschmann de Koning Law has previously written about the serious risks associated with drowsy driving. Fatigue can impair reaction time, concentration, coordination and decision-making and activating a driver-assistance system does not eliminate those risks.

If you have been injured in a collision involving driver-assistance technology

Determining responsibility after a serious motor vehicle collision can be complicated when automated or semi-automated technology is involved.

If you or someone you love has suffered a serious injury, it may be important to obtain legal advice before potentially important evidence is lost or overwritten.

At Deutschmann de Koning Law, our personal injury lawyers assist people injured in motor vehicle collisions throughout Southwestern Ontario. Our team can investigate the circumstances of the collision, assess potential sources of compensation and help injured people pursue the medical, rehabilitation, income and other benefits to which they may be entitled.

If a vehicle was “driving itself” when the collision occurred, that does not mean nobody was responsible. Determining who—or what—was responsible requires a careful examination of the evidence.

About Deutschmann de Koning Law

Deutschmann de Koning Law serves South-Western Ontario with offices in Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge, Woodstock, Brantford, Stratford and Ayr. The law practice of Robert Deutschmann and Nick de Koning focuses almost exclusively in personal injury and disability insurance matters. For more information, please visit www.ddinjurylaw.com or call us at 1-519-742-7774.