The delegate appears to accept that the petitioner did not intend to put his vehicle in motion when he got in, and up to when he was approached by the police, at least for the sake of argument, and then find care or control on the basis that the petitioner might have later changed his mind and decided to drive. Thus, the reasons seem to confirm the prohibition on the basis of an intention that had yet to be formed, and might never have been reached. The prohibition was confirmed on the basis of a risk that the petitioner might change his mind, and later form the intention to drive his truck. Arguably, that reasoning did not accord with authorities such as Vandermeer v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2002 BCSC 46, where, at para. 15 the court says: … being in “care and control of a motor vehicle” must mean something other than simply being capable of setting the vehicle in motion, and that it is patently unreasonable to find that the capability of setting a motor vehicle in motion renders one in care and control of the vehicle within the meaning of s. 94.1.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.