R. v. Jackson (C.D.), 2012 ABPC 312

JudgeRosborough, P.C.J.
CourtProvincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateJuly 31, 2012
Citations2012 ABPC 312;(2012), 552 A.R. 202 (PC)

R. v. Jackson (C.D.) (2012), 552 A.R. 202 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. DE.063

Her Majesty the Queen (Crown) v. Cory David Jackson (accused)

(111499539p1; 2012 ABPC 312)

Indexed As: R. v. Jackson (C.D.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Rosborough, P.C.J.

November 9, 2012.

Summary:

The accused was charged with having care or control of his vehicle while his ability to operate a vehicle was impaired by alcohol and while he had an excessive blood-alcohol level.

The Alberta Provincial Court convicted the accused.

Criminal Law - Topic 1368

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Care or control or operating - What constitutes - The accused was found "passed out" in the driver's seat of his vehicle at 7:53 a.m. - The engine was running - The Alberta Provincial Court convicted the accused of having care or control of his vehicle while his ability to operate a vehicle was impaired by alcohol and while he had an excessive blood-alcohol level - The accused had not rebutted the presumption of care or control in s. 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code - Even if the presumption had not applied, the Crown had proven de facto care or control - The vehicle was running - The accused had taken no steps to make the vehicle more comfortable for sleeping - The vehicle was parked where the accused had no right to be - The accused was in possession of the keys and had used them more than once to start the vehicle - The accused was at least moderately intoxicated - He had made no alternate plans for transportation and would definitely have been driving at some point in time during that day - He was prepared to drive from that location when his ability to do so was impaired by alcohol - See paragraphs 69 to 80.

Criminal Law - Topic 1369

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Care or control - General - The Alberta Provincial Court reviewed the law regarding the offence of impaired care or control under s. 253(1) of the Criminal Code, the presumption of care and control in s. 258(1)(a) and the requirement of a "realistic risk of danger" in the determination of de facto care or control - See paragraphs 36 to 59.

Criminal Law - Topic 1369

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Care or control - General - The Alberta Provincial Court reviewed and summarized the Alberta cases regarding the offence of impaired care or control under s. 253(1) of the Criminal Code - See paragraphs 60 to 64.

Criminal Law - Topic 1369

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Care or control - General - The Alberta Provincial Court stated, "In a fact situation where the accused is found asleep or passed out in the driver's seat of a motor vehicle, the starting-point for consideration is to determine whether the presumption described in s. 258(1)(a) [of the Criminal Code] is engaged. If engaged, it falls to the accused to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he did not occupy the driver's seat for the purpose of setting the vehicle in motion. Failure to do so leaves the accused in care or control of the motor vehicle. This analysis should be separate from that relating to whether he is in de facto care or control of the vehicle. If it is determined that the presumption does not apply (and in the absence of proof of a contemporaneous intention to drive) the court must consider three circumstances in which a realistic risk of danger might arise..." - A realistic risk of danger was a "low threshold" - The court set out a non-exhaustive list of six areas of inquiry that were helpful in addressing whether the accused was in de facto care or control of a vehicle - See paragraphs 65 to 68.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. J.H.S. (2008), 375 N.R. 67; 265 N.S.R.(2d) 203; 848 A.P.R. 203; 2008 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Gray (B.F.) (2012), 522 A.R. 374; 544 A.P.R. 374; 2012 ABCA 51, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Boudreault (D.) (2012), 436 N.R. 343; 350 D.L.R.(4th) 533; 2012 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Whyte, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 3; 86 N.R. 328, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Appleby, [1972] S.C.R. 303, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Ford, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 231; 40 N.R. 451; 36 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 254; 101 A.P.R. 254, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Saunders, [1967] S.C.R. 284, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Toews, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 119; 61 N.R. 349, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Penno, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 865; 115 N.R. 249; 42 O.A.C. 271, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Decker (B.S.) (2002), 209 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 44; 626 A.P.R. 44; 2002 NFCA 9, leave to appeal refused [2002] 4 S.C.R. vii; 303 N.R. 397; 231 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 355; 686 A.P.R. 355, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Burbella (W.P.) (2002), 166 Man.R.(2d) 198; 278 W.A.C. 198; 2002 MBCA 105, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Shuparski (D.), [2003] 6 W.W.R. 428; 232 Sask.R. 1; 294 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SKCA 22, leave to appeal refused [2003] 2 S.C.R. x; 321 N.R. 397; 254 Sask.R. 319; 336 W.A.C. 319, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Mallery (A.E.) (2008), 327 N.B.R.(2d) 130; 840 A.P.R. 130; 2008 NBCA 18, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Yorston (M.J.), [2012] A.R. Uned. 301; 2012 ABCA 251, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Ogrodnick (C.) (2007), 409 A.R. 56; 402 W.A.C. 56; 2007 ABCA 161, refd to. [para 48].

R. v. Armstrong (J.L.) (2005), 367 A.R. 105; 346 W.A.C. 105; 2005 ABCA 195, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Gent, [1997] A.J. 72 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Fortin (M.L.) (1993), 141 A.R. 243; 46 W.A.C. 243 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Vallée (P.A.) (1993), 145 A.R. 274; 55 W.A.C. 274 (C.A.), affing. (1992), 136 A.R. 321; 42 M.V.R.(2d) 25 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Friesen, [1991] A.J. No. 811 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Green (1989), 100 A.R. 131 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. McMillan (1989), 99 A.R. 194 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Colvin, [1980] A.J. No. 155 (C.A.), revsing. (1980), 24 A.R. 89 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Kowalik (A.J.) (2010), 497 A.R. 281; 2010 ABQB 554, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Ingram (K.T.) (2007), 427 A.R. 156; 2007 ABQB 631, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Cove, 2006 ABQB 264, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Barber (B.), [2006] A.R. Uned. 187; 2006 ABQB 90, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Campbell (M.D.), [2004] A.R. Uned. 854; 2004 ABQB 652, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Simison (E.A.), [2003] A.R. Uned. 649; 2003 ABQB 914, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Prior (J.M.) (2000), 276 A.R. 310; 2000 ABQB 909, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Grover (J.R.) (2000), 276 A.R. 77; 2000 ABQB 779, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Ross (C.J.) (1997), 215 A.R. 149 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Larin (M.L.) (1997), 215 A.R. 117 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Ganpatt (D.) (1995), 177 A.R. 311 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Steinke, [1986] A.J. No. 1449 (Q.B.), leave to appeal denied [1987] A.J. No. 1448 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Gill (1986), 76 A.R. 107 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Hannemann (S.), [2001] O.T.C. 338 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Ross, 2007 ONCJ 59, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Smits (J.) (2012), 294 O.A.C. 355; 2012 ONCA 524, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Szymanski (J.), [2009] O.T.C. Uned. K94 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Mackenzie (1955), 111 C.C.C. 317 (Alta. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 79].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 258(1)(a) [para. 37].

Counsel:

V. Alexander, for the Crown;

D. Bullerwell, for the accused.

This case was heard at Wetaskiwin, Alberta, on July 31, 2012, by Rosborough, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following reasons for decision on November 9, 2012.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • R. v. Spracklin (V.E.), (2013) 551 A.R. 323 (PC)
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • 2 October 2012
    ...47]. F.H. v. McDougall (2008), 380 N.R. 82; 260 B.C.A.C. 74; 439 W.A.C. 74; 2008 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 48]. R. v. Jackson (C.D.) (2012), 552 A.R. 202; 2012 ABPC 312, refd to. [para. 50]. R. v. Boudreault (D.) (2012), 436 N.R. 343; 2012 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 53]. R. v. Cox (J.D.), [2009]......
  • R. v. Spracklin (V.E.), (2014) 582 A.R. 330 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 13 September 2013
    ...[para. 14]. R. v. Mackenzie (D.D.) (2013), 568 A.R. 1; 50 M.V.R.(6th) 119; 2013 ABQB 446, refd to. [para. 23]. R. v. Jackson (C.D.) (2012), 552 A.R. 202; 2012 ABPC 312, refd to. [para. 28]. R. v. Boudreault (D.), [2012] 3 S.C.R. 157; 436 N.R. 343; 2012 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 30]. R. v. Ogr......
  • R. v. Abaza (Z.M.), [2013] A.R. Uned. 794
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • 19 December 2013
    ...to drive. Justice Slatter notes that the law has been settled by Boudreault . [31] R. v. Mackenzie , 2013 ABQB 446, R. v. Jackson , 2012 ABPC 312 and R. v. Spracklin , 2013 ABPC 55 all turn on the failure of the accused to rebut the presumption of care or control pursuant to section 258(1)(......
  • R. v. Robertson (T.S.), [2015] A.R. Uned. 172
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • 3 February 2015
    ...are R. v. Szymanski (2009) 88 M.V.R. (5th) 182 (Ont. S.C.J.), R. v. Smits , 2012 ONCA 524, R. v. Ross , 2007 ONCJ 59, and R. v. Jackson , 2012 ABPC 312. I have reviewed all the factors in those cases and will apply those that are relevant to the facts of this case. [18] The truck is operabl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • R. v. Spracklin (V.E.), (2013) 551 A.R. 323 (PC)
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • 2 October 2012
    ...47]. F.H. v. McDougall (2008), 380 N.R. 82; 260 B.C.A.C. 74; 439 W.A.C. 74; 2008 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 48]. R. v. Jackson (C.D.) (2012), 552 A.R. 202; 2012 ABPC 312, refd to. [para. 50]. R. v. Boudreault (D.) (2012), 436 N.R. 343; 2012 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 53]. R. v. Cox (J.D.), [2009]......
  • R. v. Spracklin (V.E.), (2014) 582 A.R. 330 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 13 September 2013
    ...[para. 14]. R. v. Mackenzie (D.D.) (2013), 568 A.R. 1; 50 M.V.R.(6th) 119; 2013 ABQB 446, refd to. [para. 23]. R. v. Jackson (C.D.) (2012), 552 A.R. 202; 2012 ABPC 312, refd to. [para. 28]. R. v. Boudreault (D.), [2012] 3 S.C.R. 157; 436 N.R. 343; 2012 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 30]. R. v. Ogr......
  • R. v. Abaza (Z.M.), [2013] A.R. Uned. 794
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • 19 December 2013
    ...to drive. Justice Slatter notes that the law has been settled by Boudreault . [31] R. v. Mackenzie , 2013 ABQB 446, R. v. Jackson , 2012 ABPC 312 and R. v. Spracklin , 2013 ABPC 55 all turn on the failure of the accused to rebut the presumption of care or control pursuant to section 258(1)(......
  • R. v. Robertson (T.S.), [2015] A.R. Uned. 172
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • 3 February 2015
    ...are R. v. Szymanski (2009) 88 M.V.R. (5th) 182 (Ont. S.C.J.), R. v. Smits , 2012 ONCA 524, R. v. Ross , 2007 ONCJ 59, and R. v. Jackson , 2012 ABPC 312. I have reviewed all the factors in those cases and will apply those that are relevant to the facts of this case. [18] The truck is operabl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT