R. v. Wrolson (J.A.), 2003 ABPC 85

• Judge: Allen, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 14, 2003
• Citations: 2003 ABPC 85;(2003), 338 A.R. 286 (PC)

R. v. Wrolson (J.A.) (2003), 338 A.R. 286 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. JN.045

Her Majesty The Queen v. Jeffrey Albert Wrolson

(020314092P101001, 002; 2003 ABPC 85)

Indexed As: R. v. Wrolson (J.A.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Allen, P.C.J.

May 14, 2003.

Summary:

The accused was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired and care and control while having an excessive blood-alcohol content. The issue was whether the accused had care and control of the vehicle.

The Alberta Provincial Court found the accused guilty of having care and control of a vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol content. Care and control was established applying the presumption in s. 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (deemed care and control where accused occupied driver's seat not rebutted). Additionally, the Crown proved actual care and control based on the facts.

Courts - Topic 8

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - Precedents - Court of Appeal - Weight (incl. memorandums and reserved judgments) - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that "the Alberta Court of Appeal for a period of time created some confusion as to the precedential value of its decisions. The Alberta Court of Appeal issues some written judgments they entitle 'memorandum of judgment'. The Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Bonneteau ... per Hetherington, J.A., seemed to indicate that memoranda of judgment issued by the Alberta Court of Appeal, at least concerning sentencing, were of little precedential weight. She said that reserved decisions have substantial precedential value. This observation led some to believe that the form of the written material from the Alberta Court of Appeal was of some consequence to its precedential value; the Court of Appeal in R. v. Beaudry ... indicated that this view was inaccurate. In Beaudry, the Court clarified that all judgments of the Court of Appeal pursuant to stare decisis are binding upon lower courts. The form of the judgment may be of some consequence for the Alberta Court of Appeal in determining if the Court will derogate from a previous decision or choose conflicting previous judgments. ... Their form does not change the precedential value for lower courts." - See paragraph 48.

Criminal Law - Topic 1368

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Care or control or operating - What constitutes -The accused was driving home after drinking, believing himself to be sober - He felt ill and suffered blurred vision, so he pulled over, turned his hazard lights on, turned the vehicle off and was sick - The accused testified he intended to call his cousin to come drive the vehicle home, but could not see well enough to dial his cell phone - The accused fell asleep behind the wheel, although it was not his intention to do so - The keys remained in the ignition and the stereo was blaring - The Alberta Provincial Court found the accused guilty of care and control of a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol content - Pursuant to s. 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, an accused occupying the driver's seat was deemed to have care and control unless he rebutted the presumption by establishing on a balance of probabilities that he had no intention of setting the vehicle in motion - The accused failed to rebut the presumption, where he had no settled intention and had not clearly decided that he would not put the vehicle in motion - Alternatively, actual care and control was established where the accused performed "an act which involves some use of the car, its fittings and equipment or some course of conduct associated with the vehicle which involve a risk of putting the vehicle in motion so it could become dangerous".

Cases Noticed:

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. 5].

R. v. Shuparski (D.J.) (2003), 232 Sask.R. 1; 294 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Appleby, [1972] S.C.R. 303, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Toews, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 119; 61 N.R. 349, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Whyte, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 3; 86 N.R. 328, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Penno, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 865; 115 N.R. 249; 42 O.A.C. 271; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 344, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Hudson (1989), 23 M.V.R.(2d) 284 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. George (A.) (1994), 120 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 237; 373 A.P.R. 237; 90 C.C.C.(3d) 502 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Hatfield (D.) (1997), 98 O.A.C. 316; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 47 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Sherbrook (T.J.), [1998] 6 W.W.R. 602; 164 Sask.R. 83 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Wren (K.A.) (2000), 130 O.A.C. 302; 144 C.C.C.(3d) 374 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2000] 2 S.C.R. xii; 264 N.R. 198; 145 O.A.C. 199, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Burbella (W.P.) (2002), 166 Man.R.(2d) 198; 278 W.A.C. 198; 167 C.C.C.(3d) 495 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. St. Pierre (G.R.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 791; 178 N.R. 241; 79 O.A.C. 321; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 42].

Woods Manufacturing v. R., [1951] S.C.R. 504, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Bonneteau (R.A.) (1994), 157 A.R. 138; 77 W.A.C. 138; 24 Alta. L.R.(3d) 153 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Beaudry (M.J.) (2000), 271 A.R. 219; 234 W.A.C. 219 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Madden (T.) (2001), 288 A.R. 34 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 57].

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. 76].

R. v. Avetysan (A.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 745; 262 N.R. 96; 195 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 338; 586 A.P.R. 338, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Starr - see R. v. Sharpe (J.R.).

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. King, [1962] S.C.R. 746, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Stellato (T.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 217; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 380 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Stellato (T.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 478; 168 N.R. 190; 72 O.A.C. 140; 90 C.C.C.(3d) 160, refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Andrews (1996), 178 A.R. 82; 110 W.A.C. 82; 46 C.R.(4th) 74 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

Counsel:

K. Goddard, for the Crown;

P. Northcott, for the accused.

This case was heard before Allen, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on May 14, 2003.