R. v. Toews (1985), 61 N.R. 349 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
R. v. Toews
(No. 17666)
Indexed As: R. v. Toews
Supreme Court of Canada
Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain, JJ.
September 19, 1985.
Summary:
The accused was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while his ability to drive was impaired, contrary to s. 234(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The accused submitted that he had no intention to drive the vehicle. The British Columbia Provincial Court convicted the accused. The accused appealed.
The British Columbia County Court dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed again.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in, [1983] 3 W.W.R. 667; 4 C.C.C.(3d) 450; 33 C.R.(3d) 279, allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused. The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.
Criminal Law – Topic 1367
Motor vehicles – Impaired driving – Care or control – Meaning of – The Supreme Court of Canada held that acts of care or control, short of driving, are acts which involve some use of the car or its fittings and equipment, or some course of conduct associated with the vehicle which would involve a risk of putting the vehicle in motion so that it could become dangerous – Each case will depend on its own facts – See paragraph 10.
Criminal Law – Topic 1368
Motor vehicles – Impaired driving – Care or control – What constitutes – The accused was found sleeping in a vehicle parked on private property some 8-10 feet from the road – He was lying on the front seat, his head by the passenger side door, his lower body encased in a sleeping bag extending under the steering wheel with his feet resting on or hanging towards the floor – The ignition key was in the ignition; the stereo was playing; the engine was not running; the lights were not on – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accused did not have care or control of the vehicle for purposes of a charge under s. 234(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada – See paragraph 10.
Criminal Law – Topic 1369
Motor vehicles – Impaired driving – Care or control – Mens rea – The Supreme Court of Canada held that proof of an intent to drive i.e. to set the vehicle in motion, is not an essential element of proof on a charge of having care or control of a motor vehicle while the ability to drive is impaired – The court held that the accused’s intention is relevant insofar as it may contribute to the presence of the required mens rea for the offence or tend to exclude it – The mens rea for having care or control is the intent to assume care or control after the voluntary consumption of alcohol or a drug; the actus reus is the act of assuming control – See paragraph 7.
Criminal Law – Topic 1369
Motor vehicles – Impaired driving – Care or control – Evidence and proof – The Supreme Court of Canada held that to prove a charge of having care or control of a motor vehicle while the ability to drive is impaired, the Crown must establish the presence of impairment by evidence in the usual way – The element of care or control may be established either by reliance upon the presumption in s. 237(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, where applicable, or by showing actual care or control without reliance upon the presumption – See paragraph 7.
Criminal Law – Topic 1369
Motor vehicle – Impaired driving – Care or control – Defences – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the lack of an intention to drive is not by itself a defence to a charge of having care or control of a motor vehicle while the ability to drive is impaired – See paragraph 8.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Donald (1970), 3 C.C.C.(2d) 146 (B.C.C.A.), refd. to [para. 4].
R. v. Thompson (1940), 75 C.C.C. 141, (N.S.S.C.A.D.), refd. to [para. 9].
R. v. Henley, [1963] 3 C.C.C. 360 (N.S.C.C.), refd. to [para. 9].
R. v. Price (1978), 21 N.B.R.(2d) 532; 37 A.P.R. 532; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 378 (N.B.S.C.A.D.), refd. to [para. 9].
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, folld. [para. 9].
Statutes Noticed:
Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 234(1) [paras. 6, 7]; sect. 237(1)(a) [paras. 6, 8].
Counsel:
Catherine Ryan, for the appellant;
William Firman, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and LeDain, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada on October 30, 1984. The decision of the Supreme Court was delivered by McIntyre, J., on September 19, 1985.
