SCC decision on impaired driving

[OpenGambit]

R v. Boudreault

Coles Notes: there must be a "realistic risk of danger to persons or property" to get convicted for care or control contrary to s 253 of the CCC.

"realistic" is below "probable".

Short facts. guy was drinking, called a cab, waiting in his truck with the engine on for heat, got convicted. SCC entered an acquittal.

Cheers.

*Edit*, note that the same facts without him having already called the cab, would result in conviction.

 

[kellen]

a victory for common sense

 

[OpenGambit]

a victory for common sense

Agreed, but I want to point out that this isn't a change of the law in Ontario, it has always been interpreted that way. This case stems from Quebec

I personally think the whole section is drafted poorly, you shouldn't need an SCC decision for something like this.

 

[nobbie48]

MADD will be madder. I think this is a good call as well but wonder if the same good judgement will apply when the rules get bent even further and the drinker deserves the charge. What if the driver imobilized the vehicle by removing one wheel, putting it in the trunk?

I was under the impression that you could be charged the minute you touched the car with the keys in your hand. You couldn't even open the door to get a coat during a blizzard.

 

[Paul1000RR]

MADD will be madder. I think this is a good call as well but wonder if the same good judgement will apply when the rules get bent even further and the drinker deserves the charge. What if the driver imobilized the vehicle by removing one wheel, putting it in the trunk?

I was under the impression that you could be charged the minute you touched the car with the keys in your hand. You couldn't even open the door to get a coat during a blizzard.

maybe we should just charge people the minute they pick up booze from the lcbo or beer store. i mean you already took the first step, you bought a drink

 

[AF4iK]

My sister's bf was charged once for sitting in his car under the influence with the key out of the ignition. Don't recall how it turned out though.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

maybe we should just charge people the minute they pick up booze from the lcbo or beer store. i mean you already took the first step, you bought a drink

Well, that is their secondary agenda - prohibition.. The primary is collecting as much cash as possible

 

[ViperZ]

maybe we should just charge people the minute they pick up booze from the lcbo or beer store. i mean you already took the first step, you bought a drink

You might as well get charged with rape then since you have the tool!

 

[socially distorted]

this is almost as bad as the "racing" law where you are guilty right off the bat. definitely needs a re-write. I live out of town so a cab is out of the question and I always thought I was ok just sitting in the parking lot of a pub or something and having a nap for an hour or so. I'm not talking a night of heavy drinking but maybe 3 beers in 2 hours and at the point where you might be right on the border of the 3 day suspension... since i know pretty well a beer per hour is ok, i figure if i wait the extra hour or so to drive home i'll be ok.... That I can be charged right in the lot seems a bit overkill because I clearly had no intention of driving ... but no way to prove it. Wonder if I called the police to tell them i was there and not going anywhere ... yeah right..... Guess I'll have to find a pub beside a huge parking lot or something ....

 

[Paul1000RR]

this is almost as bad as the "racing" law where you are guilty right off the bat. definitely needs a re-write. I live out of town so a cab is out of the question and I always thought I was ok just sitting in the parking lot of a pub or something and having a nap for an hour or so. I'm not talking a night of heavy drinking but maybe 3 beers in 2 hours and at the point where you might be right on the border of the 3 day suspension... since i know pretty well a beer per hour is ok, i figure if i wait the extra hour or so to drive home i'll be ok.... That I can be charged right in the lot seems a bit overkill because I clearly had no intention of driving ... but no way to prove it. Wonder if I called the police to tell them i was there and not going anywhere ... yeah right..... Guess I'll have to find a pub beside a huge parking lot or something ....

Or, and this might be a crazy idea, if you plan on drinking dont drive! \who would have thought eh?

 

[Emefef]

Or, and this might be a crazy idea, if you plan on drinking dont drive! \who would have thought eh?

He said he lives out of town and a cab wasn't an option. So maybe, and this might be a crazy idea, if you plan on driving don't drink!

I get it though - you're close to the recommended guidance, and you want to make sure it's okay. Nap in the back seat or passenger seat if you don't have one. FFS, though, don't reach across and touch any controls. If your *** isn't the driver's seat you could end up with a 172 and they'll tow your bed away.

 

[Brian P]

My sister's bf was charged once for sitting in his car under the influence with the key out of the ignition. Don't recall how it turned out though.

Happened to my brother-in-law years ago - charged with impaired because he was sleeping in his car. I still think it's absurd.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

Or, and this might be a crazy idea, if you plan on drinking dont drive! \who would have thought eh?

Here's a crazy notion.. Sometimes unplanned things happen and plans change

 

[Lyndsay]

If you're sleeping in the vehicle, leave the keys somewhere else (in the tailpipe, behind a lamp post or tree) so you obviously can't be in "care and control" of the vehicle. Gambit, please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I did it that way years ago. BTW what is SCC?

 

[GreyGhost]

Supreme court of canada.

 

[Lyndsay]

Thanks, Ghost. As Gambit said something about Quebec, I thought it was Societe something.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

R v. Boudreault

Coles Notes: there must be a "realistic risk of danger to persons or property" to get convicted for care or control contrary to s 253 of the CCC.

"realistic" is below "probable".

Short facts. guy was drinking, called a cab, waiting in his truck with the engine on for heat, got convicted. SCC entered an acquittal.

Cheers.

*Edit*, note that the same facts without him having already called the cab, would result in conviction.

Very interesting. Prior to this you could pretty much be convicted if within arms reach of the vehicle, with the keys on your person. That's a BIG change.

 

[OpenGambit]

If you're sleeping in the vehicle, leave the keys somewhere else (in the tailpipe, behind a lamp post or tree) so you obviously can't be in "care and control" of the vehicle. Gambit, please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I did it that way years ago. BTW what is SCC?

I get what you are saying, but I wouldn't want to hang my hat on that...

 

[Emefef]

Very interesting. Prior to this you could pretty much be convicted if within arms reach of the vehicle, with the keys on your person. That's a BIG change.

Seriously? You mean sleeping in the backseat didn't work? If you fall asleep sitting in the driver seat where you may have had an intention to operate the vehicle, I could see it. But if you're using the vehicle as shelter and you deliberately went into the back seat and went to sleep, you did not have an intention to operate the vehicle. There is no "realistic" chance of injury to anyone if you're sleeping in the back seat. What about people who live in the cars/vans? If they drink too much do they have to go somewhere else?

 

[GreyGhost]

The argument (which I have never agreed with) is that by being drunk and having the ability to operate the vehicle, you are guilty, even if not operating the vehicle. It likely got this way because people may have started driving, then pulled over to sleep it off. If the test was actually driving, it would be much harder to catch people and I think we can all agree, actual drunk driving is unacceptable. Personally I think there should be some reasonable intent applied (ie. in car outside bar ok, in car at side of road not ok as you got there somehow), but that's not the way it is. Alternatively, give people the benefit of the doubt the first time, after a single DUI conviction, you would no longer be allowed to be in/near a car with keys while drunk.