Care or Control
In Canadian impaired driving law, you do not have to be driving to be convicted. "Operating" a conveyance under section 320.14 of the Criminal Code includes having care or control of the vehicle. That means a person sitting in a parked car can be charged with impaired driving or over 80, even if the engine is off and the vehicle never moved.
What "care or control" means
The Supreme Court of Canada's leading case is R v Boudreault, 2012. To find care or control, the Crown must prove three things: intentional acts that involve the vehicle or its fittings (sitting in the driver's seat, holding the keys, turning on accessories); impairment by alcohol or drugs, or a BAC above the threshold; and a realistic risk of danger — to people or property — flowing from the accused's conduct. Without all three elements, the charge cannot succeed. The realistic-risk requirement is what distinguishes the offence from a person who, for example, gets into a parked car simply to wait for a sober ride and never has any present intent to drive.
Common care or control scenarios
Police often lay care or control charges where: an impaired person is found in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle, with the keys in the ignition or pocket; an impaired person is asleep behind the wheel; a vehicle is found stopped — partially on a road, in a drive-through, or with the engine running; or a person sat in a vehicle to use the heat, the radio, or to charge a phone after consuming alcohol.
The realistic risk of danger
Defences in care or control cases often turn on whether there was a realistic risk of danger. Factors include: whether the keys were in the ignition; whether the vehicle was operable; the location of the vehicle — parked at home, on a roadway, in a parking lot; whether the accused had a credible alternate plan (a sober driver coming, a taxi or rideshare booked, a hotel room rented); the accused's state of consciousness at the time; and the state of the vehicle (engine running, lights on, gear engaged). Where the evidence shows the accused had no intent to drive and had taken concrete steps to ensure the vehicle would not be operated, the realistic-risk requirement may not be met.
Penalties
If convicted, the same mandatory minimums and consequences apply as for any impaired driving or over 80 offence — substantial fines, driving prohibitions, mandatory ignition interlock, and a criminal record. There is no lesser version of the offence based on the fact that the accused did not actually drive.
How Mass Tsang defends care or control cases
Care or control cases turn on detailed factual analysis. Our Toronto DUI lawyers examine the surrounding circumstances closely — the vehicle's state, the accused's stated intent, the time of night, and any concrete plan for sober transport. To explore related impaired driving issues, see our posts on the DUI arrest process and on the difference between DUI and DWI in Canada.
Related glossary terms
