The appellant appealed a summary conviction for care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug under the Criminal Code.
The trial judge had acquitted the accused of impaired driving but convicted him of the included offence of care or control.
On appeal, the court held that the trial judge failed to properly apply the legal test requiring proof of conduct creating a realistic risk of danger associated with the vehicle.
The evidence showed the accused had collapsed inside a convenience store, had surrendered his keys to police, and had requested an ambulance.
As there was no evidence of conduct creating a risk of danger that the vehicle would be set in motion, the conviction lacked an evidentiary foundation and involved an error in law.
