The appellant was convicted of having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol, contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
The appeal challenged the trial judge's findings regarding the appellant's "alternate plan" to avoid driving, the application of the reasonable doubt standard, and the assessment of credibility.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial judge correctly applied the "realistic risk of danger" test from Boudreault, finding no concrete or reliable alternate plan to negate the inherent risk posed by the appellant's extreme intoxication, despite the driver's seat presumption being rebutted.
