3 total
The accused successfully rebutted the presumption of care or control by proving he occupied the driver's seat only to sleep and smoke.
The accused was charged with being in care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.
The Crown established that the accused's ability to operate the vehicle was impaired, with a projected blood alcohol level between 70 to 125 mgs/100ml.
The sole issue was whether the accused was in care or control of the vehicle.
Although the accused occupied the driver's seat, triggering a statutory presumption of care or control, the court found the accused successfully rebutted this presumption.
The accused testified he sat in the driver's seat to wait for his mother to fall asleep after a family dispute, keeping the door open to smoke and avoid using the ignition.
The court accepted his evidence as logical and consistent with circumstantial evidence, finding no realistic risk of danger and no evidence of intent to set the vehicle in motion.
The charge was dismissed.
The accused was sentenced to six years in prison for criminal negligence and impaired operation of a canoe causing the death of a child.
The accused was convicted of criminal negligence causing death and impaired operation of a vessel causing death following the death of an eight-year-old child during a canoeing incident on the Muskoka River during spring run-off.
The accused had consumed alcohol and cannabis before taking the child canoeing toward a waterfall to retrieve a barrel, resulting in the canoe capsizing and the child drowning.
The court imposed a six-year penitentiary sentence and a ten-year prohibition on operating a vessel, finding the accused's conduct demonstrated wanton and reckless disregard for the child's life and safety.
The accused was convicted of driving over the legal limit after being found asleep.
The accused was charged with Over 80 following a traffic stop on Highway 400.
The Crown alleged the accused was in care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.
The defence raised multiple Charter and non-Charter issues, including challenges to the grounds for the ASD demand, the timing of rights to counsel, the adequacy of legal advice received, and whether the accused was in de facto care or control.
The court found the Crown proved de facto care or control beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted the accused.
