Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient_510
May or may not be exactly correct.
R. c. Ngo Tran, 2014 QCCQ 11706
[50]A person occupying the driver's seat of a motor vehicle is presumed to have care or control of that vehicle unless that person establishes that he or she does not occupy that seat for the purpose of setting the vehicle in motion. To rebut this presumption requires the accused to prove lack of that intention on the balance of probabilities.
[51] A person who satisfies the court that he or she had no intention to set the vehicle in motion will not necessarily escape conviction: an inebriated individual who is found behind the wheel and has a present ability to set the vehicle in motion, without intending at that moment to do so , may nevertheless present a realistic risk of danger to persons or property. The risk of danger must be realistic and not just theoretically possible. But nor need the risk be probable, or even serious or substantial.
It is reasonable to conclude that if you can effectively demonstrate to the court that your only intent was to operate the heater or the radio or the door, you had no intent to set the vehicle in motion. Therefore "care or control", within the meaning of section 253(1) of the Criminal Code, would not apply.
|
Isn't that the prosecutors job to show evidence that you are using the car other than to operate the heater or the radio?