Andrew David Midwood

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for impaired care or control of a motor vehicle under s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

He had been found asleep in the driver’s seat of a parked vehicle with the engine running while waiting for a designated driver.

The appeal court held the trial judge misapplied the legal test for care or control by treating the accused’s decision to sleep while waiting as undermining his safety plan.

Applying the principles in R. v. Boudreault and related authorities, the court found there was insufficient evidence of a realistic risk that the accused would set the vehicle in motion or change his intention to drive.

The trial judge’s reasoning improperly criminalized the use of the vehicle for a manifestly innocent purpose.

The accused was tried on historical sexual offence charges involving two complainants who were his step-daughters.

The court reviewed the governing principles on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the W.(D.) framework, delayed disclosure in sexual abuse cases, the assessment of evidence concerning childhood events, and the distinction between sincerity and reliability.

Although the court found the complainants and supporting witnesses sincere, it concluded that extensive inconsistencies, the frailties of memory concerning distant events, and collective post-disclosure discussions rendered the evidence unreliable.

Applying the second branch of W.(D.), the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all counts.