The appellant appealed a summary conviction for impaired care or control arising from a single-vehicle collision where he was found passed out partly in the driver's seat with keys accessible in the console.
He argued that the trial judge erred in the use of circumstantial evidence, misapplied the W.(D.) framework to the defence witness, and reversed the burden of proof.
The appeal court held that the trial judge properly rejected the statutory presumption yet correctly proceeded to assess de facto care or control on the evidence as a whole.
Applying the deferential summary conviction appeal standard, the court found the factual inferences were reasonably open to the trial judge and upheld the conviction.
