R. v. Yakobchuk (R.M.), (2005) 383 A.R. 304 (PC)

• Judge: Allen, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 29, 2005
• Citations: (2005), 383 A.R. 304 (PC);2005 ABPC 189

R. v. Yakobchuk (R.M.) (2005), 383 A.R. 304 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] A.R. TBEd. AU.089

Her Majesty the Queen v. Ronald Michael Yakobchuk

(040196818P101001; 002; 2005 ABPC 189)

Indexed As: R. v. Yakobchuk (R.M.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Allen, P.C.J.

July 29, 2005.

Summary:

The accused was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and having care or control of a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol level.

The Alberta Provincial Court found the accused not guilty of the charges where it was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in care or control of the motor vehicle.

Criminal Law - Topic 1368

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Care or control or operating - What constitutes - At 11:15 p.m., a police officer heard loud music coming from a motor vehicle parked behind an apartment building - The vehicle was running and the accused was asleep in the driver's seat - The vehicle was in park and the emergency brake was engaged - The accused was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and having care or control of a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol level - The accused testified that he was parked in his assigned parking stall, that he entered his vehicle to clean it and listen to music, that he took some alcohol into the vehicle with him and that he had no intention to drive - The Alberta Provincial Court found the accused not guilty of the charges where it was not satisfied that he was in care or control of the motor vehicle - The accused established that he did not occupy the driver's seat for the purpose of setting the vehicle in motion - The Crown also did not prove that he was in actual care or control of the vehicle where it did not establish the required element of risk of danger - Putting the vehicle in motion involved a number of steps and would have required intentional action by the accused - The evidence supported the view that the accused did not pose a danger of intentionally putting the vehicle in motion.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Madden (T.) (2001), 288 A.R. 34 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Wrolson (J.A.), [2003] 9 W.W.R. 418; 388 A.R. 286 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 12].

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, consd. [para. 18].

R. v. Whyte, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 3; 86 N.R. 328; 64 C.R.(3d) 123; 6 M.V.R.(2d) 138; [1988] 5 W.W.R. 26; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 29 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 51 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 35 C.R.R. 1, consd. [para. 20].

R. v. Higgins, [1929] 1 D.L.R. 269 (Ont. S.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Butler, [1939] 4 D.L.R. 592 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [para. 25].

R. v. Thompson (1940), 75 C.C.C. 141 (N.S.C.A.), consd. [para. 26].

R. v. Kennedy, [1964] 2 C.C.C. 94 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 27].

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. 28].

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. 29].

R. v. Penno, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 865; 115 N.R. 249; 42 O.A.C. 271; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 344; 49 C.R.R. 50, consd. [para. 39].

R. v. Watson (1984), 59 N.B.R.(2d) 196; 154 A.P.R. 196; 30 M.V.R. 267 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 43].

R. v. Pezzola, [1989] B.C.J. No. 2096 (Co. Ct.), consd. [para. 44].

R. v. Green (1989), 100 A.R. 131; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 93 (C.A.), consd. [para. 45].

R. v. Diotte (1991), 115 N.B.R.(2d) 195; 291 A.P.R. 195; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 209 (C.A.), consd. [para. 46].

R. v. Ganpatt (D.) (1995), 177 A.R. 311 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 49].

R. v. Hodgkins (M.B.) (1995), 106 Man.R.(2d) 241; 18 M.V.R.(3d) 22 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 50].

R. v. Clarke (P.) (1997), 188 N.B.R.(2d) 123; 480 A.P.R. 123; 27 M.V.R.(3d) 91 (C.A.), consd. [para. 51].

R. v. Gent (M.C.), [1997] A.R. Uned. 11; 30 M.V.R.(3d) 317 (C.A.), consd. [para. 53].

R. v. Pilon (L.H.) (1998), 115 O.A.C. 324; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 236 (C.A.), consd. [para. 54].

R. v. Lockerby (B.) (1999), 180 N.S.R.(2d) 115; 557 A.P.R. 115; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 314 (C.A.), consd. [para. 55].

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, consd. [para. 56].

R. v. Gerrard (D.S.) (2000), 275 A.R. 122 (Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 57].

R. v. Decker (B.S.) (2002), 209 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 44; 626 A.P.R. 44; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 503 (Nfld. C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (2002), 303 N.R. 397; 231 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 355; 686 A.P.R. 355 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 58].

R. v. Groves (W.G.), [2003] A.R. Uned. 87 (Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 60].

Counsel:

K. Mah, for the Crown;

K. Haryett, for the accused.

This matter was heard before Allen, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on July 29, 2005.