R. v. Wren

47 O.R. (3d) 544



The only potential danger was of putting the vehicle in motion. When the accused was in the vehicle waiting for the tow truck, he was not in care or control within the meaning of those terms as defined in the case law. [8and9of9] In order to establish care or control of a motorized vehicle the act or conduct of the accused in relation to that motor vehicle must be such that there is created risk of danger, whether from putting the car in motion or in some other way. [6of9] The requirement of some risk of danger in order to establish the actus reus of �care or control� is consistent with the basis for a finding of criminal liability under the impaired driving/care or control offences. As the Supreme Court stated in R. v. Saunders, the object of the offence is to protect persons and properties from danger. No potential danger either to any person or any property from the combination of the impaired person and the motor vehicle; there is no need for the protection, which is the object of the offence. [6and7of9]



The accused was found occupying the driver seat of his car, which was in a ditch two or three feet in depth The car was found slanted with the keys in the ignition. Unsuccessful efforts were made to extricate the vehicle. The engine was off and the air bag had been deployed. The accused had sought assistance to move it, but the pickup truck used could not complete the task. The vehicle was damaged to the extent of $7000. [3of9]



The issue to be determined on the facts of each case is whether any acts by the accused could cause the vehicle to become a danger whether by putting it in motion or in any other way. [8of9]