Flight / Failure to Stop: Section 249.1(1)
-
Evidence of subsequent flight on foot may be probative of the mens rea element required to prove flight / failure to stop for police: R v McLean, 2016 ONCA 38 at para 4
Driving "Over 80"
-
Duty to administer ASD "without delay"
-
The officer is obliged to administer the approved screening device without delay unless the officer has a concern that the reading obtained by administering the test will be reliable. If the officer has a concern about fresh mouth alcohol, the officer may briefly delay in administering the test: R v Su, 2016 ONCA 58 at para 2
-
-
In/Operability of the Vehicle
-
An inoperable or stationary vehicle may create a realistic rick of danger to persons or property through “negligence, bad judgment or otherwise”: R v Balogun-Jubril, 2016 ONCA 199 at paras 10-11
-
- Care and Control
- the intention to set the vehicle in motion “suffices in itself to create the risk of danger contemplated by the offence of care or control.” Although the presumption may be rebutted by proof of the absence of the requisite intention, the risk of danger remains relevant, not for the purpose of rebutting the presumption, but for the purpose of determining whether the accused’s conduct in relation to the vehicle presents a realistic risk of danger to persons or property so as to establish care or control under s. 253(1) of the Code: R v O'Neil, 2016 ONCA 307 at para 100
Dangerous Driving
-
Actus Reus
-
In considering whether the actus reus has been established, the question is whether the driving, viewed objectively, was dangerous to the public in all of the circumstances. The focus of this inquiry must be on the risks created by the accused’s manner of driving, not the consequences, such as an accident in which he or she was involved. The court must not leap to its conclusion about the manner of driving based on the consequence. There must be a meaningful inquiry into the manner of driving: R v Zaba, 2016 ONCA 167 at para 37 [citations ommitted]
-
Drive Disqualified
-
In order to suceed in a conviction for drive disqualified, there must be evidence to show that the vehicle was being operated on a street, road, highway or other public place within s. 259(1) of the Code. Where the vehicle is located on a driveway, there may also be evidence led as to whether there was an express, inherent or implied invitation to access the driveway: R v Amell, 2016 ONCA 336, at para 3