The appellant appealed a conviction for having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired contrary to s. 253(a) of the Criminal Code.
The appellant argued there was insufficient evidence that he was in care or control and that the trial judge misapplied the law after finding the statutory presumption of care or control rebutted.
The appeal court held that the trial judge properly conducted a risk-of-danger analysis considering the totality of the circumstances, including the accused’s position in the driver’s seat of a running vehicle and the potential for him to place the vehicle in motion while impaired.
The court concluded that intent to drive is not required where the circumstances demonstrate a realistic risk that the impaired accused could set the vehicle in motion.
The conviction was upheld.
