R. Rawana

The Crown and the accused jointly sought to vary the accused's release conditions to allow unrestricted contact with the complainant and participation in a Ministry of the Attorney General-approved Partner Assault Response (PAR) program, with the understanding that the assault charge would be withdrawn upon successful completion and entry into a peace bond.

Justice Moore critically examined the "standard" PAR conditions proposed, finding them inconsistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in *R. v. Zora*.

The court ruled that such conditions were not justified to ensure court attendance or public safety, inappropriately delegated judicial authority, were not tailored to the individual, were overly onerous, and attempted to enforce civil debt through criminal sanction.

The application for variation was granted, but with the court's substituted, less restrictive conditions for the PAR program.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control and care or control over 80 mgs of alcohol.

The central issue was whether the Crown established that the accused was in care or control of a motor vehicle.

The accused was found in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle with the keys in the ignition and the gearshift in drive position.

The accused claimed he never drove the vehicle and was merely comforting his intoxicated friend in the passenger seat.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as unreliable and found that the conduct created a significant risk of the accused putting the vehicle in motion.

The court convicted on both charges, with a conditional stay on the over 80 mgs charge.