G. Jenner

The appellant appealed her conviction for impaired care and control of a motor vehicle.

She was found intoxicated in the driver's seat of her parked, running vehicle facing oncoming traffic.

The trial judge found she rebutted the presumption of care and control by proving she did not intend to drive, but convicted her on the basis that the vehicle's position posed a realistic risk of danger.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law by shifting the burden of proof and requiring the appellant to prove on a balance of probabilities that she did not present a realistic risk of danger.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for assault arising from an altercation with his former common law spouse during a child exchange.

He argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, applied unequal scrutiny to the testimony of the complainant and the accused, rendered an unreasonable verdict, and failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the trial judge made no material misapprehension of the evidence and was entitled to draw the credibility inferences she did.

The court further held that the trial judge applied the proper analytical framework under R. v. W.(D.), assessed both witnesses with equal scrutiny, and provided legally sufficient reasons.

The conviction for assault and the conditional discharge with probation were upheld.