R. v. MacKinnon

R. v. MacKinnon

Where the accused was not driving, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused’s acts involving the vehicle created a real risk of the vehicle being put in motion (change of mind or unintentional movement); on these facts the defence rebutted the s.258(1)(a) presumption on the balance of probabilities and the Crown failed to prove the required risk element, so acquittal is warranted.

Citation
2010 NSPC 31
Parties
Crown (prosecution): Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant (accused): Jason Alexander MacKinnon
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Not guilty on both charges (acquitted)
Legal Topics
Care and Control, Presumption Under S.258(1)(a), Impaired Driving, Rebuttal of Presumption, Risk of Danger/change of Mind
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Road Traffic Offences Evidence Care and Control Presumption Under S.258(1)(a) Impaired Driving Rebuttal of Presumption Risk of Danger/change of Mind

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown (prosecution)

Jason Alexander MacKinnon

Defendant (accused)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was in care and control of the vehicle at the material time
  2. 2 Whether the Crown proved the risk of danger/change of mind necessary to sustain care and control absent actual driving
  3. 3 Whether the defence rebutted the statutory presumption in s.258(1)(a) on a balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

Where the accused was not driving, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused’s acts involving the vehicle created a real risk of the vehicle being put in motion (change of mind or unintentional movement); on these facts the defence rebutted the s.258(1)(a) presumption on the balance of probabilities and the Crown failed to prove the required risk element, so acquittal is warranted.

Court Disposition

Not guilty on both charges (acquitted)

Orders

  • Accused found not guilty of offences contrary to s.253(1)(a) and s.253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code