R. v. Thomas

Parties

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving (care and Control) / Trial Judgment (decision)

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether the Crown established care or control via the statutory presumption in s.258(1)(a) Criminal Code
2. 2 Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption on a balance of probabilities
3. 3 If rebutted, whether the Crown proved de facto or actual care and control beyond a reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

Although the accused rebutted the presumption in s.258(1)(a) by establishing on the balance of probabilities he entered the vehicle to warm up and wait for a cab, the Crown nonetheless proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he had care and control: he started the engine, was asleep in the driver’s seat with keys in ignition, emergency brake not engaged and blood alcohol 170 mg%, creating a realistic risk of danger; accordingly guilty of s.253(1)(a) and not guilty of s.253(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Guilty of care and control contrary to s.253(1)(a) Criminal Code; Not guilty on s.253(1)(b) Criminal Code

Orders

• Defendant convicted of s.253(1)(a) Criminal Code (care and control)
• Defendant acquitted of s.253(1)(b) Criminal Code