The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol content exceeding the legal limit.
The accused conceded her impairment, her elevated blood alcohol content, and that she was driving, but claimed she did not voluntarily consume the alcohol necessary to exceed the legal limit, asserting instead that a companion had spiked her drink with an unknown drug, rendering her unconscious and incapable of making conscious decisions about drinking and driving.
The court rejected the accused's characterization of the defence as a mens rea issue and determined it was an actus reus issue involving a claim of involuntary conduct akin to automatism.
The court found the accused bore the burden of proving involuntary conduct on a balance of probabilities and failed to meet this burden.
The court rejected the accused's claim of amnesia as not credible and found no evidentiary foundation for the claim of drug-induced impairment.
The court convicted the accused.
