The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of impaired care or control and over 80 care or control of a motor vehicle.
The trial judge had found no realistic risk of danger, accepting the respondent's "alternate plan" to sleep in his vehicle after his initial plan to stay at a friend's house fell through.
The Superior Court of Justice, on appeal, found that the trial judge erred in law by failing to articulate a path of reasoning demonstrating appreciation of all relevant circumstances regarding the risk of danger, as required by R. v. Boudreault.
The trial judge's conclusion that it was "very unlikely" the respondent would have driven was deemed conclusory without sufficient analysis of factors such as the high blood alcohol level, the failed sleep-over plan, lack of corroboration for a morning plan, and the individual's isolation.
The appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered.