R. v. Watts

R. v. Watts

Court holds Crown can rely on s.320.35 presumption without proving a realistic risk of danger, defence failed to rebut presumption on balance of probabilities, accused is deemed in care or control and convicted under s.320.14(1)(b) (BAC over 80 mg/100 ml within two hours) but acquitted of impaired operation s.320.14(1)(a) because Crown did not prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt without expert evidence.

Citation
2021 NSPC 8
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Cassandra Melissa Watts
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Accused convicted on s.320.14(1)(b); acquitted on s.320.14(1)(a).
Legal Topics
Care or Control, Statutory Presumption S.320.35, Breath Analysis, Reasonable Doubt
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Impaired Driving Evidence Care or Control Statutory Presumption S.320.35 Breath Analysis Reasonable Doubt

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Cassandra Melissa Watts

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused was in care or control of vehicle
  2. 2 Whether statutory presumption in s.320.35 requires proof of a realistic risk of danger
  3. 3 Whether the defence rebutted the presumption on balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

Court holds Crown can rely on s.320.35 presumption without proving a realistic risk of danger, defence failed to rebut presumption on balance of probabilities, accused is deemed in care or control and convicted under s.320.14(1)(b) (BAC over 80 mg/100 ml within two hours) but acquitted of impaired operation s.320.14(1)(a) because Crown did not prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt without expert evidence.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted on s.320.14(1)(b); acquitted on s.320.14(1)(a).

Orders

  • Convicted of having, within two hours after ceasing to operate a conveyance, a blood alcohol concentration equal to or exceeding 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood contrary to s.320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
  • Found not guilty of operating a conveyance while ability to operate was impaired contrary to s.320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.