The situation
The client was found in a parked vehicle in a parking lot. The engine was off. The keys were on the dashboard. Police attended and made observations that led to a demand and, ultimately, a charge.
Not every impaired-driving file involves driving. Where the vehicle was stationary, the case can turn entirely on the 'care or control' analysis — a distinct legal question the Supreme Court set out in R. v. Boudreault.
What the case turned on
Whether the client had the intention to set the vehicle in motion, or whether the Crown could nonetheless establish a realistic risk of danger given all the circumstances.
The presumption in the former s. 258(1)(a) is no longer in force; the Crown must prove care or control on the evidence, not by default.
How the file was worked
Detailed timeline of what the client did on arrival at the vehicle, what the intention was, and what the surrounding facts showed about the risk of the vehicle actually being set in motion.
Cross-examination preparation on the officer's observations at the scene — position in the vehicle, key location, ignition state, seat and gear settings, and phone/rideshare use.
Legal argument on Boudreault applied to the specific facts.
Legal issues in play
- Physical control of the vehicle — where the client was, and what they were doing.
- Intention to set the vehicle in motion, or the absence of that intention on the evidence.
- The realistic-risk-of-danger analysis on the specific facts.
- Any alternative-plan evidence — ride-hail app records, sleeping arrangements, phone use.
For similar matters
'Care or control' files are often defensible on facts that a driving file is not — because the whole analysis is different.
Saggi Law Firm treats a stationary-vehicle DUI as a distinct file from a driving DUI from the first review.