Roy c. R., 2014 QCCS 6240 (CanLII)
[49] Dans l'affaire Fisher, émanant de l'Alberta, une série de facteurs pertinents à l'analyse du risque réaliste de danger sont énoncés :
[28] Durno J. in R. v. Szymanski, 2009 CanLII 45328 (ON SC), [2009] OJ No 3623, 88 MVR (5th) 182 (Ont.S.C.J.) [Szymanski], noted that it was difficult to define what evidence would establish or refute the creation of a realistic risk. After examining the jurisprudence, Durno J. provided a non-exhaustive list of factors that a court might look at when determining if a real risk had arisen (at paragraph 93). These factors were cited with approval by the Court in Smits, supra, at paragraph 63:
(a) The level of impairment, which is relevant to the likelihood of exercising bad judgment and the time it would take for the accused to become fit to drive;
(b) Whether the keys were in the ignition or readily available to be placed in the ignition;
(c) Whether the vehicle was running;
(d) The location of the vehicle;
(e) Whether the accused had reached his or her destination or if the accused was still required to travel to his or her destination;
(f) The accused’s disposition and attitude;
(g) Whether the accused drove the vehicle to the location where it was found;
(h) Whether the accused started driving after drinking and pulled over to “sleep it off” or started using the vehicle for purposes other than driving;
(i) Whether the accused had a plan to get home that did not involve driving while impaired or over the legal limit;
(j) Whether the accused had a stated intention to resume driving;
(k) Whether the accused was seated in the driver’s seat regardless of the applicability of the presumption;
(l) Whether the accused was wearing his or her seatbelt;
(m) Whether the accused failed to take advantage of alternate means of leaving the scene;
(n) Whether the accused had a cell phone with which to make other arrangements and failed to do so.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire