The defendant, William Leahy, was charged with operating a motor vehicle while his ability was impaired by a drug.
He was found passed out in the driver's seat of his vehicle with the engine running.
The court addressed whether the defendant rebutted the statutory presumption of care or control under s. 320.35 of the Criminal Code, and if so, whether the Crown proved de facto care or control by demonstrating a realistic risk of danger.
The court found that the defendant rebutted the presumption, distinguishing prior case law (Hatfield and Miller) by emphasizing that the impaired occupancy of the driver's seat did not begin with an intention to set the vehicle in motion.
The court also found no realistic risk that the defendant would change his mind and drive or unintentionally set the vehicle in motion.
Consequently, the defendant was found not guilty.
