R. v. Bisson

R. v. Bisson

The presumption under s.258(1)(a) was rebutted on the balance of probabilities; the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had care or control creating a realistic risk of danger because there was insufficient evidence he possessed the means to set the vehicle in motion at the relevant time and breath readings alone do not establish realistic risk; therefore acquittal required.

Citation
2016 NSPC 44
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Sean Colin Bisson
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Care or Control (impaired Driving) / Trial Judgment (oral Decision Acquittal)
Outcome
Accused found not guilty (acquitted) of offences under s.253(1)(a) and s.253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
Legal Topics
Care or Control of a Motor Vehicle, Impaired Driving (s.253(1)(a) and (b)), Presumption Under S.258(1)(a), Realistic Risk of Danger Standard (boudreault), Credibility Assessment (w.(d.))
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Administrative (breath Testing) Care or Control of a Motor Vehicle Impaired Driving (s.253(1)(a) and (b)) Presumption Under S.258(1)(a) Realistic Risk of Danger Standard (boudreault) Credibility Assessment (w.(d.))

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Sean Colin Bisson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Care or Control (impaired Driving) / Trial Judgment (oral Decision Acquittal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused had 'care or control' of the vehicle at the relevant time
  2. 2 Whether the presumption in s.258(1)(a) applies or was rebutted
  3. 3 Whether breath readings alone establish impairment or realistic risk of danger

Ratio Decidendi

The presumption under s.258(1)(a) was rebutted on the balance of probabilities; the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had care or control creating a realistic risk of danger because there was insufficient evidence he possessed the means to set the vehicle in motion at the relevant time and breath readings alone do not establish realistic risk; therefore acquittal required.

Court Disposition

Accused found not guilty (acquitted) of offences under s.253(1)(a) and s.253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

Orders

  • Accused acquitted of charges under s.253(1)(a) and s.253(1)(b)
  • No further orders recorded