R v Corbasson
2015 ONCJ 563
R. v. Corbasson
2015 ONCJ 563
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice Richard H.K. Schwarzl | September 1, 2015
Background
On May 9, 2014, Peter Corbasson was found by police sleeping in his car in a Mississauga fast food restaurant parking lot. He had been drinking with relatives at a restaurant, drove away despite staff telling him not to, and pulled over when he felt tired. Police found him impaired with a blood alcohol concentration of 180 mg per 100ml — more than twice the legal limit.
The police investigation wrapped up around 1:30 a.m., but Corbasson wasn't released until 8:30 a.m. — seven and a half hours later. During that time, he was kept in a cold cell without his shoes, denied medication for his high blood pressure and arthritis, given only a "useless plastic sheet" instead of a blanket, and told by one officer "The more you ask, the longer you will stay" when he repeatedly asked to go home.
Issues
- Was Corbasson in "care or control" of his vehicle while impaired?
- What remedy should be granted for the arbitrary detention that violated his Charter rights?
The Care or Control Finding
The court found Corbasson guilty on both the impaired driving and over-80 charges. Even though his car was off, parked in a lot, and he was sleeping, section 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code creates a presumption that anyone found intoxicated in the driver's seat intended to drive. Corbasson failed to rebut this presumption — he had entered the car specifically to drive, never abandoned that intention, and told police he felt "fit to drive" even with his dangerously high blood alcohol level.
The Charter Breach and Remedy
Both Crown and defence agreed the seven-hour detention violated Corbasson's section 9 Charter right against arbitrary detention. The first supervising officer, S/Sgt. Manvati, decided to hold Corbasson for "four or five hours" based solely on his high blood alcohol reading, without assessing his actual condition or considering other factors. This violated the principles established in R. v. Price about post-investigation detention.
The defence sought a stay of proceedings, but the court refused. While the detention was unlawful, it wasn't "flagrant, shocking or scandalous." The second supervising officer, S/Sgt. Armstrong, properly applied the legal factors and would have released Corbasson at 6:00 a.m., but was delayed by an unusually busy night with too many prisoners and too few staff.
Key Takeaway
Police cannot hold you indefinitely after their investigation is complete, even for impaired driving — but Charter breaches don't automatically mean your charges disappear.
Instead of a stay, the court reduced Corbasson's sentence from what would normally be imposed for such a high reading. The court "dissociated" itself from the police misconduct while still holding the defendant accountable, showing that Charter remedies often involve sentence reduction rather than case dismissal.