2 total
Care or control requires a risk of danger.
The Crown appealed from the dismissal of a summary conviction appeal after the accused was acquitted of impaired care or control and care or control over 80.
The Court of Appeal held that, to establish care or control of a motor vehicle, the accused's act or conduct in relation to the vehicle must create a risk of danger, whether by putting the vehicle in motion or in some other way.
Reconciling the Supreme Court authorities, the court concluded that an inoperable vehicle may still ground liability if it presents some danger in the hands of an impaired person, but no such danger was established on the facts presented.
It was therefore open to the trial judge to conclude that an impaired person sitting in an immovable vehicle in a ditch while waiting for a tow truck was not in care or control.
The Crown's appeal was dismissed and no costs were awarded.
Appeal dismissed; new trial ordered due to trial judge's misdirection on the burden of proof.
The appellant was acquitted at trial on charges of rape and robbery.
The Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge misdirected the jury by applying the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to individual items of evidence rather than the totality of the evidence.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal's conclusion and order for a new trial.
