Digest: R v McNab, 2018 SKQB 349

• Date: December 18, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 349

Docket Number: CRM 284/17 JCS , QB18337

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-12-18

Judges:

• Dufour

Subjects:

• Criminal Law � Appeal � Conviction
• Criminal Law � Appeal � Guilty Plea
• Criminal Law � Care and Control � Presumption
• Criminal Law � Guilty Plea � Criminal Code, Section 606
• Criminal Law � Impaired Driving

Digest: The appellant pled guilty to impaired driving, contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. The appellant was in the vehicle when the police arrived and two empty pill bottles, one labeled sleeping pills and one antidepressants, were in the console. The accused testified that he decided to go for a drive and ended up parking his vehicle in a parking lot and put his keys in the glove box. He said he then proceeded to take the pills trying to commit suicide. He had consumed two bottles of prescription medicine in an attempt to kill himself. The sentencing judge dismissed the appellant�s application for a curative discharge. The appellant appealed his conviction and the dismissal of his curative discharge application on the following grounds: 1) that the judge failed to properly apply the law, including s. 255(5) of the Criminal Code; 2) the judge accepted that the appellant was in need of treatment in relation to mental health that involved the consumption of prescription drugs, yet committed an error in determining that since there was no �drug addiction� she could not grant a discharge; 3) the judge failed to properly apply the law, including s. 606(1.1) of the Criminal Code; and 4) the judge accepted the guilty plea but was not satisfied that the essential mental element was present. The appellant�s counsel entered a guilty plea on his behalf when the accused was not present. The appellant was present for his next appearance.
HELD: The court first discussed whether the appellant�s guilty plea should have been accepted. The court had to determine whether the appellant could, at law, have been convicted of the offence of impaired driving. The presumption of care and control can be rebutted if the accused establishes that he or she did not occupy the driver�s seat for the purpose of setting the vehicle in motion. The court found that the appellant rebutted the presumption of care and control because there was no risk of danger to persons or property. The appellant�s evidence was sufficient for the court to conclude that the appellant did not admit to an essential...