R. v. Parks

R. v. Parks

The accused rebutted the s.258(1) presumption by showing on the balance of probabilities that he intended to sleep and not to drive and took measures to avoid driving; the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his presence in the driver's seat with the key presented the requisite risk of danger to establish criminal care or control, so the accused must be acquitted.

Citation
2003 NSPC 21
Parties
Informant: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Kim Richard Parks
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Care or Control / Trial Oral Decision (provincial Court)
Outcome
Not guilty on both counts under s.253(a) and s.253(b) of the Criminal Code
Legal Topics
Care or Control, Presumption Under S.258(1), Impaired Driving, Rebuttal of Presumption, Danger Requirement
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Evidence Care or Control Presumption Under S.258(1) Impaired Driving Rebuttal of Presumption Danger Requirement

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Informant

Kim Richard Parks

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Care or Control / Trial Oral Decision (provincial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused rebutted the presumption in s.258(1) of the Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in criminal care or control of the vehicle
  3. 3 Whether presence in the driver's seat with keys in the ignition, without using vehicle controls, constitutes care or control given the requirement of a risk of danger

Ratio Decidendi

The accused rebutted the s.258(1) presumption by showing on the balance of probabilities that he intended to sleep and not to drive and took measures to avoid driving; the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his presence in the driver's seat with the key presented the requisite risk of danger to establish criminal care or control, so the accused must be acquitted.

Court Disposition

Not guilty on both counts under s.253(a) and s.253(b) of the Criminal Code

Orders

  • Accused found not guilty on both counts under s.253(a) and s.253(b) of the Criminal Code
  • Crown granted leave to tender the technician's certificate