Challenge
Police found Mr. A asleep in the driver’s seat of his parked vehicle in a midtown Toronto parking lot. The engine was off, but the keys were in the ignition. The central issue was whether the Crown could prove a realistic risk of danger, a necessary component of “care and control.” Officers relied on:
- Mr. A’s position in the driver’s seat
- The presence of keys in the ignition
- An admission that he had consumed alcohol earlier
However, no evidence showed that:
- The engine had been running
- The vehicle had moved while he was impaired
- Mr. A intended to drive
Our article on how the realistic risk of danger test works explains the legal standard the court applied here.
Our Process
- Planning the case. We obtained surveillance footage from surrounding businesses and reviewed every officer’s notes. We also analyzed witness statements to determine whether anyone had seen the vehicle in motion.
- Evaluating risk of danger. We assessed whether the facts supported a realistic risk that the vehicle could move. The legal test required more than mere presence behind the wheel.
- Challenging assumptions. During cross-examination, we required officers to separate what they actually observed from what they assumed. They acknowledged never seeing the engine running or the vehicle moving.
- Legal argument. We submitted that the Crown must prove a real, not speculative, risk of danger. The evidence, taken at its highest, did not meet that threshold.
Result
The court held that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. A presented a realistic risk of danger.
The court dismissed the impaired care and control charge.
Cases like this turn on details the police may not record, which is why we gather evidence early. Our DUI defence guide explains the Charter and evidence issues that decide most impaired driving cases, and our Toronto DUI lawyer page describes how we handle charges laid in the city.
Every case is different, and past results do not predict future outcomes.