Care and Control Charge Dismissed, No Realistic Risk of Danger

Challenge

Mr. A was found asleep in the driver’s seat of his parked vehicle in a midtown Toronto parking lot. The engine was off, but the keys were in the ignition. The central issue was whether the Crown could prove a realistic risk of danger, a necessary component of “care and control.” Officers relied on:

Mr. A’s position in the driver’s seat The presence of keys in the ignition An admission that he had consumed alcohol earlier

However, there was no evidence that:

The engine had been running The vehicle had been moved while impaired Mr. A intended to drive

Our Process

01 Planning the case We obtained surveillance footage from surrounding businesses and carefully reviewed all officer notes. Witness statements were also analyzed to determine whether the vehicle had been observed in motion. 02 Evaluating Risk of Danger We assessed whether the facts supported a realistic risk that the vehicle could be set in motion. The legal test required more than mere presence behind the wheel. 03 Challenging Assumptions During cross-examination, we required officers to clarify what they actually observed versus what they assumed. They acknowledged never seeing the engine running or the vehicle moving. 04 Legal Argument We submitted that the Crown must prove a real, not speculative, risk of danger. The evidence, taken at its highest, did not meet that threshold.

Result

The court held that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. A presented a realistic risk of danger.

The impaired care and control charge was dismissed.