R. V. Noway Case Study

On the case of R. v. Noway, the court renders Noway not-guilty of the charges put forth on him which is the violation of the known and enacted criminal law 253 - operation of a motor vehicle while impaired. Criminal law seeks to provide justice to society. To be charged with a criminal offense, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed. This ‘burden of proof’ precedent was established in R. v. Oaks case which enacted that, all elements of the criminal code must be met including the mental intention; in order for the courts to exercise their authority and punish an accused person. Moreover, the rule of law [(1) that the laws are known and enacted, (2) government action is authorized by law and (3) everyone is bound by the law] also renders laws to avoid arbitrariness so that it is clear when a person is in violation of the criminal code.

S. 253 of the criminal law states (1) everyone commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or… has the care or control of a motor vehicle, whether it is in motion or not, (a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle… is impaired by a drug... For greater certainty.

The issue at hand is:

Was Noway in care and control

The "actual control" clause indicates situations when a car is parked and running, parked and stalled, or is capable of being driven at any time by an intoxicated person. However, R.v. Boudreault in 2012 set a test for the rule of law which provided that the Actus Reus is not enough to charge someone, one must also have a guilty mind (Mens Rea). Which means, there must be enough evidence for the prosecutors to show that the accused person intended the act. Although, the officer had a reasonable suspicion, there is just not enough evidence to convict Noway. Let it be known that a vehicle is not toy or a source of entertainment and that the court suggests Noway take this as a