What is the test for negligence in the context of dangerous driving?

In paragraph 77, Justice Hill refers to the decision of Mr. Justice Cory in Hundal v. The Queen (1993), 70 C.C.C. (3d) 97 where the test for negligence is discussed in the following terms: On the other hand, the test for negligence is an objective one requiring a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person. There is no need to establish the intention of the particular accused. The question to be answered under the objective test concerns what the accused "should" have known. Thus, it is clear that the basis of liability for dangerous driving is negligence. The question to be asked is not what the accused objectively intended but rather whether, viewed objectively, the accused exercised the appropriate standard of care. It is not overly difficult to determine when a driver has fallen markedly below the acceptable standard of care. There can be no doubt that the concept of negligence is well understood and readily recognized by most Canadians. Negligent driving can be thought of as a continuum that progresses, or regresses, from momentary lack of attention giving rise to civil responsibility through careless driving under a provincial Highway Traffic Act to dangerous driving under the Criminal Code. The Hazard of Racing