R. v. Wainwright Date:, 2011 BCPC 218

Citation: R. v. Wainwright Date: 20110502 2011 BCPC 0218 File No: 173334-1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. LISA LILLIAN WAINWRIGHT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE JUDGE M.B. HICKS Counsel for the Crown: J. Gahunia Counsel for the Defendant: S. Nozick Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Dates of Hearing: April 26, 27, November 1, 2010; April 7, 8, 11, 2011 Date of Judgment: May 2, 2011 [ 1 ] THE COURT: Lisa Wainwright is before this court for her trial on Information number 173334.

She is charged that on December 25, 2008, at Surrey, British Columbia, while her ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol or a drug, she had the care or control of a motor vehicle, contrary to s. 253(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] A companion charge of refusing to provide a breath sample pursuant to a lawful demand, contrary to s. 254(5) was dismissed at the close of the Crown's case at the urging of the Crown. [ 3 ] I have heard the evidence of two civilian witnesses and three police officers in the Crown's case. Ms. Wainwright gave evidence and Audrey Jakus, an expert in the physiological and pharmacological properties of alcohol and certain drug medications, gave evidence for the defence. [ 4 ] I must determine whether the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms.

Wainwright's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol or a drug, and if so, on the particular facts, whether the Crown has proven the requisite mens rea of this offence. [ 5 ] The evidence establishes that on the evening of December 25, 2008, driving conditions were poor. Although it was not snowing at the time of the events involved here, it had been snowing and some amount of snow had accumulated on the roadway.

[ 6 ] At about 10:00 p.m., Ryan Hocaluk observed a red Chevy automobile, driven by Ms. Wainwright, turn from 68th Avenue into Highland Road to go westbound. The vehicle was ahead of him as he travelled in the same direction. That vehicle was travelling too fast for the conditions. Highland Road at this point curves first to the left and then to the right. On this evening, snow banks about three feet high encroached partially onto the roadway, although room remained for two vehicles to pass. Ms. Wainwright's car failed to make it through the curve and went into the snow bank on the right side of the road. Mr.

Hocaluk stopped behind Ms. Wainwright's vehicle. He put on his flashing lights and he got out to assist. [ 7 ] He observed Ms. Wainwright sliding about as she walked to the rear of her vehicle. She was wearing three-inch spiked heels. She was relaxed and very happy. Mr. Hocaluk said that he would assist her to get out of the snow bank. He got down on his knees at the rear of her vehicle in order to look for a tow hook-up. Ms. Wainwright was by then back in the driver's seat of her vehicle and began reversing the vehicle and revving the engine as Mr. Hocaluk was still kneeling behind her vehicle.

At that point, Mr. Hocaluk became concerned. Ms. Wainwright again got out of her vehicle and Mr. Hocaluk detected the odour of liquor about her. He noted slurred speech, he noted her difficulty walking. His opinion was that she was very intoxicated. He decided not to assist her out of the snow bank and he left the scene. [ 8 ] Larry Heide approached the scene from the opposite direction. He saw Ms. Wainwright in her vehicle in the snow bank as he passed. He turned around and came back and he parked behind her. At that point her vehicle was idling in reverse. The rear end of her vehicle was in the roadway. Mr.

Heide observed Ms. Wainwright use her hands braced on her car to assist her in walking to the rear of the vehicle where he met her. He noted her to be wobbling, like swaying to keep her balance. She seemed to be having difficulty focusing on him and her speech was somewhat slurred. He asked if she had been drinking, and she replied, "Drinking? I'm drunk." He declined to help her get her vehicle out of the snow. She told him that he was strong and handsome and commented on his fiancée, who was still in Mr. Heide's vehicle. He told her three or four times that he would not help her out.

She returned to the driver's seat of her vehicle. He heard her gunning the engine of her vehicle. He believed Ms. Wainwright to be inebriated. [ 9 ] In cross-examination, Mr. Heide agreed that the icy surface would make walking in heels difficult. Although there might be some discrepancy in the wording in the statement that he gave to the police, the tenor of the words spoken by Ms. Wainwright did not change. [ 10 ] Cst. Galos arrived on the scene at about 10:05 p.m. He observed that Ms. Wainwright had some difficulty getting out of the door of her vehicle. She was swaying and wobbling.

Her movements were loose and gangly. When they met at the rear of her vehicle, he detected a strong odour of liquor on her breath. She was dishevelled. He noted that she was wearing high heels. They had a conversation, during which Ms. Wainwright was abrupt and demanded Cst. Galos assist her in getting her car out of the snow bank. She was swaying and grabbed his arm for balance. Her eyes were red, bloodshot and watery. She had a carefree and relaxed manner. He formed the opinion that Ms. Wainwright was impaired by alcohol when he placed her under arrest for impaired driving. He placed her in handcuffs.

She was agitated and uncooperative, almost combative. She refused to get into the rear of the police car and he had to use force to accomplish that. As he did so, she kicked him. Ms. Wainwright was yelling. As the constable proceeded through the arrest, Charter and warnings and breath demand, she did calm. [ 11 ] During transport to the detachment, he observed the same symptoms earlier noted. He observed Ms. Wainwright to be crying and distraught. She could not keep her balance and needed assistance to enter the detachment. Inside the detachment, she became upset with Cst.

Galos because he had to wait for a female member to attend before she could use the washroom. She yelled profanities at him. [ 12 ] During an observation period, he observed Ms. Wainwright to slur her speech and ramble. She had trouble putting sentences together. [ 13 ] He later drove Ms. Wainwright home. He noted that she was flirtatious. She required assistance to get from the vehicle to her door. He observed her at court and observed that she walked without assistance at the courthouse. [ 14 ] In cross-examination, Cst.

Galos said the symptoms he observed did not change during the three-hour period that he observed Ms. Wainwright that evening. He agreed that the swaying and difficulty walking could be as a result of the high-heeled boots that she wore. He agreed that he was told by Ms. Wainwright that she was on medication for a bipolar condition. He agreed that Ms.

Wainwright became more agitated when she was denied a call to her father after speaking to Legal Aid and apparently expressing dissatisfaction with the advice she received. [ 15 ] Kevin Bailey, the qualified breath technician who was present at the police station to take breath samples, confirmed Ms. Wainwright's agitation when she was denied access to her father. He described her manner as arguing with Cst. Galos. [ 16 ] Cst. David Derusha, who attended the roadside, observed Ms. Wainwright swaying back and forth during her dealings with Cst. Galos. [ 17 ] Ms. Wainwright gave evidence. She is 31 years of age.

She was diagnosed with a bipolar condition about ten years ago. She is at risk of suffering manic depressive episodes. She has been prescribed several different medications to address this condition over those years. [ 18 ] At the time of these events, Ms. Wainwright was under the care of a psychiatrist. On October 20th of 2008, that doctor had made a change to her medication, taking her off of the medication called Wellbutrin and replacing it with a medication called Apo-Gabapentin, which is anti-epileptic medication.

Changes to medication normally involve a gradual increase in the daily dosage to a level which the physician believes will provide the best benefit to the individual patient. As of December 25, 2008, Ms. Wainwright was taking three medications to address her diagnosed bipolar condition. In addition to Apo-Gabapentin, Ms. Wainwright was also taking Divalproex sodium, an antiepileptic medication, and Venlafaxine hydrochloride, an antidepressant. Ms.

Wainwright was prescribed these medications at set dosages to be taken three times a day as follows: in the morning, 600 milligrams of Gabapentin, 250 milligrams of Divalproex sodium and 150 milligrams XR Novo Venlafaxine; at about 4:00 p.m., 300 milligrams of Gabapentin and 250 milligrams of Divalproex sodium; at bedtime, 600 milligrams of Gabapentin, 250 milligrams of Divalproex sodium and 150 milligrams of Novo Venlafaxine.

[ 19 ] Some further history is relevant to Ms. Wainwright's defence. On April 17th of 2008, Ms. Wainwright's vehicle was struck by another vehicle. Ms. Wainwright suffered a concussion and knee, back and neck soft-tissue injuries. She suffered pain in these areas, and headaches. [ 20 ] On October 31 of 2008, Ms. Wainwright fell and broke two bones in her foot. She was in an air cast until December 10, 2008. She also suffered pain as a result of this injury. [ 21 ] As a result of these injuries, Ms.

Wainwright was also prescribed Tylenol number 3 to be taken, in pill form, one or two every four hours as needed for pain. Ms. Wainwright was also prescribed Ativan to provide short-term relief for anxiety. The prescribed dosage was .5 milligrams every eight hours as needed. [ 22 ] On December 25 of 2008, Ms. Wainwright spent Christmas morning with her daughter at her home. In the afternoon, Ms. Wainwright and her boyfriend travelled to her mother's home for Christmas dinner with her family. Her boyfriend drove Ms. Wainwright's car. At about 3:30 or 4:00 p.m., Ms.

Wainwright came to the conclusion that she had forgotten to take her medication that morning, so she took her morning dosages of the three bipolar medications at that time. In addition, she was experiencing pain in her back and neck and her foot, so she took two Tylenol number 3 pills. She also took .5 milligrams of Ativan. [ 23 ] Having waited until about five o'clock in the afternoon to give some gap in time between the dosage of medications taken between 3:30 and 4:00 p.m., Ms. Wainwright then took her regular afternoon dosage of medications. [ 24 ] Ms.

Wainwright brought a bottle of her homemade wine as a gift for her mother to Christmas dinner. She does not usually consume very much alcohol. Ms. Wainwright said that on this occasion, because she was not driving and had no plan to drive, she had a four-ounce glass of that wine with dinner. At the beginning of the dinner, during a toast, some wine inadvertently spilled from the glass onto her clothing. [ 25 ] Dinner finished between 5:30 and 6:00 p.m. Ms. Wainwright and her boyfriend left to drive home between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. Just before she left, Ms.

Wainwright continued to feel pain and so she took three Tylenol number 3 pills. She washed them down with the last of the wine in her glass. She and her boyfriend then drove home. [ 26 ] During that drive, they continued an argument which had begun at her mother's home. They continued to argue for at least 20 minutes while seated in the car outside of their home. At some point during this period, Ms. Wainwright says that she took her bedtime dosages of medication, which she had with her, in anticipation of going inside the house to bed. However, the argument escalated. Ms.

Wainwright decided not to go into the house, and instead decided to return to her mother's home. [ 27 ] Ms. Wainwright is not comfortable driving in the snow and avoids it. On this occasion, she acknowledged that she took a risk. She preferred that risk to remaining with her boyfriend and she alluded to some past physical encounter. Based on this past experience, she made a choice to assume the risk and to drive in the snow and winter conditions. She drove alone in her car to her mother's home and spent some time there. [ 28 ] She then left her mother's home to drive back to her own home.

As she drove home, she says she was not driving fast, but at the curve on Highland Road, the vehicle slid on the icy surface and she went into the snow bank. [ 29 ] Ms. Wainwright stated that her doctor had been attempting to change and adjust her medications over some months, without complete success. Her emotional and mental state had progressed from depressed to a manic state, which peaked on December 25th. Her mother had remarked on this, which led Ms. Wainwright to take the .5 milligrams of Ativan earlier. Her circumstances were the subject of the argument with her boyfriend. [ 30 ] Ms.

Wainwright says her manic state played a

part in her actions after her car went into the snow bank. She said she was anxious and panicky. She tried to get her car out. It explains, she says, how she reacted to other people, including Mr. Hocaluk and Mr. Heide. Due to her manic state, she spoke in an excited and fast manner. She was initially in a state of elation, and so was pushy and aggressive. She attributes her uncharacteristically flirtatious conduct and her kicking at Cst. Galos to this state, conduct which she says would otherwise never be exhibited.

She said that her medication imbalance affected her sleep and she was fatigued as a result. [ 31 ] Ms. Wainwright was wearing a pair of boots with a three or four-inch heel. She put them on about an hour before going to her mother's home, and she had not taken them off at any point during the evening. The boots were uncomfortable, particularly considering her recently-broken foot which continued to pain her. The boots were stylish, and for this reason she continued to wear them, even at her mother's home. Rather than remove the boots, Ms.

Wainwright chose to deal with the pain in her foot, and also in her back and neck, by taking Tylenol number 3. Ms. Wainwright says the odour of liquor detected about her is from the wine spilt on her clothing. [ 32 ] Ms. Wainwright explains her balance difficulties when she moved about her vehicle, as observed by Crown witnesses, on a combination of the icy and snowy conditions underfoot and the three-inch heels that she was wearing. She explains her swaying as arising from the uncomfortable footwear, the fact she was cold and in pain. Ms. Wainwright denies telling Mr.

Heide that she was drunk. [ 33 ] Several days after the events of December 25, 2008, Ms. Wainwright realized that she was short a set of her medications. She thought back over the previous several days. She concluded that although on December 25th she thought she had not taken her morning medication, in fact she had actually taken that set of medications, as prescribed, in the morning. Thus she concluded that she took a double dosage of her morning medications, one set in the morning and then a second dosage between 3:30 and 4:00 p.m., at which time she added two Tylenol number 3 and the Ativan.

She says that she was not impaired by the alcohol she consumed, that the configuration of medication dosages that she had taken during the day, arising from her mistaken belief at the time that she had not taken her morning medications, together with fatigue and her manic state, all contributed to the symptoms observed by others at the roadside. This included her dishevelled appearance, her uncharacteristically flirtatious and disrespectful conduct towards civilians and police, crying episodes which led to watery and red eyes. Ms. Wainwright says that she was not aware that she was slurring her words.

She does not slur her words when taking her medications in proper doses. She was not aware of any difficulty focusing.

[34] Ms. Wainwright is aware that consumption of alcohol can affect her ability to drive. She is aware of the effects of her medicationin their proper dosages. This she has observed herself over time. She routinely drives for work purposes, having consumed hermedications as prescribed. The effects of her medications have been explained in the past by doctors. She said she is concerned to takeher medication as prescribed, but on this night, she acknowledged that she did not take her medications as prescribed and was aware ofthat.

Specifically, she believed she was taking her morning dosages at the time she would usually take her afternoon dosages, and thatshe then took the afternoon dosages about an hour or an hour and a half later, and then the bedtime dosage she took while seated in hercar. The time when that last dose was taken is hard to fix, because Ms. Wainwright is vague about that timeframe.

She is unsure howlong it took to drive home, how long she sat with her boyfriend in the car, when during that period she took the medication, and how longit took her to drive back to her mother's home, and then later from there to the accident scene. [35] Suffice it to say that the bipolar medication she would normally take in three doses over 12 to 14 hours she took in thecompressed timeframe of perhaps five to six hours. In addition, Ms. Wainwright acknowledged that she took five Tylenol number 3 overabout four hours, including three at once.

At the time of these events, she chose to take her medications in this manner, contrary to herprescriptions. [36] Audrey Jakus was called by the defence and gave evidence as an expert in the physiology and pharmacology of alcohol andprescription medications, specifically those taken by Ms. Wainwright on this date. Ms. Jakus' report was filed as an exhibit. In herevidence, she was presented with an hypothesis which was consistent with the evidence of Ms.

Wainwright as to the medications shetook, the timing of those medications, including the original morning dosages, which were repeated inadvertently in the afternoon, andthe single four-ounce glass of wine, at a strength of six percent alcohol, consumed with dinner. That hypothesis differed slightly fromthe scenario she used in her report, but not enough to reflect her ultimate conclusions. [37] Based on the absorption, distribution and elimination rates for alcohol and Ativan, Ms. Jakus concluded they would no longerhave had an effect on Ms. Wainwright at the time of driving, about 10:00 p.m. that evening.

She concluded the morning dosages ofmedications, taken as prescribed but then forgotten, would no longer be an influence at the time of driving. She further concluded thatthe concentration of medications taken between 3:30 to 4:00 p.m., and the time she estimates for the final ingestion in her car between8:00 and 9:00 p.m., would result in those medications being present in the blood and influencing Ms. Wainwright at the time of driving. The excessive dose of Tylenol number 3 taken after dinner, before Ms.

Wainwright left her mother's home, would result in the continuedpresence of that medication in her blood at the time of driving. [38] In her report, Ms. Jakus describes the purpose of each medication Ms. Wainwright was taking and the properties and theanticipated side-effects of those medications. Gabapentin and Divalproex sodium can have a depressive effect on the central nervoussystem. Venlafaxine can cause dizziness, nervousness, and somnolence, as well as tremors. Those effects are also anticipated with thefirst two drugs that I just mentioned.

Tylenol number 3 can cause light-headedness, dizziness, drowsiness and sedation. Somesymptoms are more pronounced when a person is standing. The adverse effects increase if the dosage is beyond the prescribed levels. When taken with a central nervous system depressant, this can have an additive effect. [39] A regular user, including Ms. Wainwright, will develop a tolerance at the prescribed dosages, allowing her to safely operate amotor vehicle, but it is Ms.

Jakus' opinion that the timing and concentration of her ingestion of medication on this date, together with theconsumption of Tylenol number 3, would lead to Ms. Wainwright experiencing side-effects, including drowsiness, difficulties withbalance, co-ordination, attentiveness and memory. Ms. Jakus agreed that the symptoms observed by the witnesses are consistent withimpairment by virtue of the medications taken. This impairment includes impairment of the ability to operate a motor vehicle. [40] I accept Mr. Heide's evidence that Ms. Wainwright appeared to him to have difficulty focusing.

I also accept his evidence,despite Ms. Wainwright's denial, that when asked if she had been drinking, she replied to the effect, "Drinking? I'm drunk." [41] I must first determine whether Ms. Wainwright's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol or a drug. I amsatisfied that the Crown has failed to establishment impairment by alcohol. Ms. Wainwright's evidence is that she had a single glass ofwine, reduced somewhat by spillage. Ms.

Jakus' evidence is that based on the timing of events, that alcohol would have been eliminatedby the time of driving and of no effect on her ability to operate a motor vehicle. [42] I conclude the symptoms observed cannot be attributed to alcohol consumption. The odour of liquor about her or on her breath isan inadequate basis upon which to elevate Ms. Wainwright's level of consumption beyond that stated. I conclude any greaterconsumption would be speculative. [43] Similarly, for this purpose, I place no great effect on her statement to Mr.

Heide to the effect that, "I'm drunk." [44] I am satisfied, however, that Ms. Wainwright's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by virtue of the prescriptionmedications she had consumed in the hours leading up to the time of driving at about 10:00 p.m. The evidence of her consumption ofthose medications given by her leads Ms. Jakus to conclude those medications would still be present in her blood system at sufficientconcentration to cause side-effects. Side-effects consistent with those medications were observed, including balance difficulties, lack ofattentiveness, memory loss and fatigue.

Those drugs affect motor skills and coordination and impact the ability of a person to operate amotor vehicle. There may be other possible explanations for the physical symptoms observed; for example, a dishevelled state, watery,bloodshot eyes, or balance difficulties on the icy road in high heels, but the quantities of drugs ingested in the concentrations present herecorroborate impairment in the ability to drive, in the opinion of the expert. I note, for example, balance problems continued to be presenton clear surfaces when at the police station. [45] Although Ms.

Wainwright might have been fatigued to some degree and suffering the effects of a manic state or episode, theevidence respecting the effects of ingestion of these medications satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt that they created the state ofimpairment in her ability to operate a motor vehicle. [46] The issue then to be resolved is whether the evidence establishes the mens rea of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. TheSupreme Court of Canada has provided guidance respecting the mens rea for this offence. In the well-known and often-cited case of R.v. Kane, (SCC), [1962] SCR 746, Mr.

Justice Ritchie of the court stated the following:

The existence of mens rea as an essential ingredient of an offence and the method of proving the existence of that ingredient are twodifferent things, and I am of the opinion that when it has been proved that a driver was driving a motor vehicle while his ability to do sowas impaired by alcohol or a drug, then a rebuttable presumption arises that his condition was voluntarily induced and that he is guilty ofthe offence created by s. 223 and must be convicted, unless other evidence is adduced which raises a reasonable doubt as to whether hewas, through no fault of his own, disabled when he undertook to drive, and drove, from being able to appreciate and know that he was ormight become impaired.

If the driver's lack of appreciation when he undertook to drive was induced by voluntary consumption ofalcohol or of a drug which he knew, or had any reasonable ground for believing might cause him to be impaired, then he cannot of courseavoid the consequences of the impairment which results by saying that he did not intend to get into such a condition. But if theimpairment has been brought about without any act of his own will, then, in my view, the offence created by s. 223 cannot be said tohave been committed.

He goes on to state: …but if it appears that the impairment was produced as a result of using a drug in the form of medicine on a doctor's order orrecommendation and that its effect was unknown to the patient, then the presumption is, in my view, rebutted. [47] The following is taken from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Toews (1985), (SCC), 21 CCC (3d)24 at p. 28. The mens rea for having care or control of a motor vehicle is the intent to assume care or control after the voluntary consumption ofalcohol or a drug.

The actus reus is the act of the assumption of care or control when the voluntary consumption of alcohol or a drug hasimpaired the ability to drive. [48] In R. v. Pomeroy, 2007 BCSC 142, Mr. Justice Romilly stated, in summarizing this area: It is not essential to prove that a driver deliberately set about consuming alcohol or a drug in order to become impaired. He then points out that the minimum level of knowledge required can be described as recklessness. This contemplates a person who maynot intend to become impaired but: … persists in his or her consumption despite his or her awareness of the risk.

In doing so, the law is also casting the net of individualresponsibility more tightly in impaired driving cases. (R. v. Madin

(1997) Nfld & PEI Reports 38 (Nfld CA) at para. 38) [49] Detailed knowledge is not required of the effects of a drug, such as the effects of a particular dosage. In R. v. Cornish (1991), 68CCC (3d), Mr. Justice Fraser of the Alberta Court of Appeal, stated the following: The law concerning responsibility for one's acts following voluntary ingestion of intoxicating substances does not require that theconsumer know to a nicety what the effects of the intoxicating substances will be.

It is enough that he or she knows that it might bedangerous and is recklessly indifferent with respect to ingestion or as to warnings relating to the effects of ingestion. Driving even ashort distance, knowing the drug might cause impairment, is reckless. (aff'd. (SCC), 1993 1 SCR 458) [50] In the present case, the evidence establishes voluntary ingestion of medications by Ms. Wainwright. No third party intervened orparticipated in any way in her decision to consume her medications. Further, Ms. Wainwright chose to vary the timing of the ingestionfrom the timeframes provided to her by her doctor.

It was entirely her decision to compress the taking of her medications from a 12-to-14-hour period, approximately, to something around six hours at the most, and to add a third Tylenol number 3 to the prescribed dosageat about the time she says that she left her mother's home. [51] No defence arises from the fact that Ms. Wainwright misapprehended that she had taken her medications at the proper time in themorning. That was something which was entirely within her control. She took no steps beyond her own power of recall to ensure shetook her medications on time, or that she remembered she had not.

In her evidence, Ms. Wainwright said that she has forgotten to takeher medications as prescribed perhaps a dozen times in the past, but has not changed her practice. [52] I find Ms. Wainwright did not take her medication as prescribed and she knew this at the time she took those dosages, and at thetime of driving. She specifically acknowledged, in cross-examination, that the three Tylenol taken at 7:00 or 7:30 p.m. exceeded theprescribed dose. [53] Because Ms.

Wainwright had been taking medications for about eight years at the time of these events, she knew thatprescription medications have side-effects if not taken as prescribed. She was generally aware of the side-effects of medications that shetook. She knew that if the proper balancing of her medications and the dosage had not been achieved, she could suffer side-effects. Thishad occurred in the past. The proper balance had not been achieved following changes to her medication in the months leading up toDecember 25th of 2008. As a result, Ms. Wainwright was depressed in the days leading up to that date.

Her depression, she said,advanced to a manic state on December 25th. Her episodes of mania caused her to be elated, where everything is sped up, she does notarticulate well, she may become confused if under stress, or may panic. She might shift from irritable to be very happy. Ms. Wainwrightwas aware of this state during the course of the day. In addition, her mother and boyfriend expressed that concern to her. [54] I conclude Ms.

Wainwright knew that to take her medication in the concentrated manner that she chose to do on this night,already in a manic state and fully aware that a tolerable balance of those medications had not yet been achieved, was likely to aggravatethe side-effects that she would experience. [55] At the time of ingestion, Ms. Wainwright had no intention of driving and no intention to become impaired in her ability to operatea motor vehicle.

She may not have known with a nicety what the impact on her ability to operate a motor vehicle might have been;however, she would certainly know that it would be dangerous to operate a motor vehicle in that condition. Having consumed thatamount of medication and in those circumstances and with that awareness, she did drive her motor vehicle in circumstances in which herability to do so was impaired by those medications. The presumption in respect of prescribed medications, which is set out in R. v. Kane,

has not been rebutted. [ 56 ] Ms. Wainwright, could you stand up, please? I find you guilty in respect to Count 2. (REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED)