R. v. M.B.F., 2003 ABQB 368

• Judge: Lee, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 17, 2003
• Citations: 2003 ABQB 368;(2003), 337 A.R. 351 (QB)

R. v. M.B.F. (2003), 337 A.R. 351 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. MY.060

Her Majesty the Queen v. M.B.F.

(020294500S1; 2003 ABQB 368)

Indexed As: R. v. M.B.F.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Lee, J.

April 30, 2003.

Summary:

The appellant was convicted of having the care or control of a motor vehicle while his ability to operate was impaired by alcohol or a drug in violation of s. 253(a) of the Criminal Code. The appellant appealed his conviction.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1368

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Care or control or operating - What constitutes -The appellant was convicted of having the care or control of a motor vehicle while his ability to operate was impaired by alcohol or a drug - The appellant was asleep in his car - The motor vehicle was not running but the keys were in the ignition - The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that he was in care or control of the vehicle - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - The Crown had presented unchallenged evidence that the appellant was driving his vehicle prior to the police arriving at the scene - See paragraphs 27 to 37.

Criminal Law - Topic 1369

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Care or control - General - The appellant was convicted of having the care or control of a motor vehicle while his ability to operate was impaired by alcohol or a drug - The appellant was asleep in his car - The motor vehicle was not running but the keys were in the ignition - The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant could have woken up and put the vehicle into motion was irrelevant - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - The court held that the conclusion was relevant and formed part of the rationale for the Criminal Code's section prohibiting impaired care and control - The court dismissed the appeal - See paragraphs 38 to 44.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Nielsen (J.D.) (1996), 186 A.R. 18 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Misiewich (1987), 81 A.R. 201 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17].

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; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 392; 13 M.V.R. 237; 133 D.L.R.(3d) 567, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Toews, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 119; 61 N.R. 349; 47 C.R.(3d) 213; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 758; [1985] 6 W.W.R. 158; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 24, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Price (1978), 21 N.B.R.(2d) 532; 37 A.P.R. 532; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 378 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Pilon (L.H.) (1998), 115 O.A.C. 324; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. McDonald (W.) (1996), 22 O.T.C. 265 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Camp (1989), 96 A.R. 135 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 43].

Counsel:

Karl R. Wilberg (Andrew March & Oake), for the appellant;

Tania Sakar (Alberta Justice), for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 17, 2003, by Lee, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on April 30, 2003.