The defendant was charged with impaired care and control of a conveyance and exceeding the legal blood alcohol concentration, along with a provincial offence for having open liquor in a motor vehicle.
The central issue was whether the defendant was in "care and control" of the vehicle for the criminal charges.
The court found that the defendant successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of care and control by demonstrating he did not intend to drive.
Furthermore, the Crown failed to prove actual care and control beyond a reasonable doubt, as there was no realistic risk of danger from the stationary vehicle or that the defendant would change his mind and drive.
Consequently, the criminal charges were dismissed, but the defendant was found guilty of the provincial offence.
