A recent case, R. v. Kefle, 2024 ONCJ 585 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k7zv6>, describes the issues well which is why I am including this as a blog.
In this case, Justice Brock Jones from Toronto, cites a case R. v. Edwards, 2024 ONCA 135, from the Court of Appeal, where the trial judge convicted the appellant of impaired driving. The circumstances surrounding how the police located the driver were fundamental to this decision. The trial judge noted that the appellant was asleep in a running vehicle, in a live lane of traffic, and remained asleep even when officers knocked on his window. Officers immediately noticed a strong odour of alcohol when interacting with the driver; his eyes were glassy, and his words were slurred. This evidence, in totality, amounted to a “level of obliviousness to one’s circumstances consistent with a highly impaired state of judgment”.
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. The Court noted that describing a motorist in these circumstances as “asleep” does not necessarily offer an “innocent inference”. As stated by the Court of Appeal:
A “reasonable innocent inference” would have to offer some “innocent” explanation for the respondent’s decision to stop his car in a live lane of traffic on an off-ramp from Highway 401, leave it running, put it in neutral, and go to sleep behind the wheel. Fatigue alone offers no “innocent inference” for such dangerous decision-making.
At paragraph 76, the court noted: I also do not find that fatigue alone explains Mr. Kefle’s behaviour. There is no reasonable conclusion to draw other than that Mr. Kefle’s lack of judgment is explained, at least in part, by his prior consumption of alcohol. I am satisfied the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Kefle was still under the influence of alcohol when Mr. Noseworthy located him. I find, as a fact, that he fell asleep while driving his motor vehicle in a live lane of traffic on Coxwell Avenue, could not park it safely, and it only remained in place because his foot remained on the brake. His ability to operate his motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol.
Analysis:
Impaired driving is one of those crimes seen as a as a danger to the public as a whole. This means that it is considered as so dangerous that is very difficult to escape a conviction if you are actually impaired or show signs of impairment. The devastation caused to innocent victims is heartbreaking. This is the reason that the court takes such a strict interpretive approach in dealing with impaired driving. In other words it is difficult for excuses to work given the above interpretation from the Court of Appeal and application in this particular case.
At Shankar Law, we deal with impaired cases but rarely agree to go to trial on these. It is not easy to win impaired driving cases. Instead we have meetings with the Crown and attempt to get the best deal possible as a sanction and enable you to undertake the interlock program as applicable.
In the case above since the litigant did not accept the interlock program and did not plead guilty with 90 days and chose to go to trial and lost at trial, that particular offender is no longer eligible for the interlock program and has to wait until the sentencing time has passed before getting to drive a vehicle again. So it is important to carefully make your choices because at the end of the day you sleep on the bed that you make!
At Shankar Law, we look forward to welcoming you and serving you to the best of our ability. We have several physical offices in South Western Ontario, mainly in the Grey and Bruce regions but we welcome cases from all over Ontario. We are here to help with your Family Law, Criminal Law and Real Estate matters.
Comments