R v. Lu,  O.J. No. 836 holds that:
30 Reading the case law, it would appear that many judges obscure the distinction, but I am of the view that sitting in the driver's seat of a truly inoperable motor vehicle will not lead to a conviction for care and control, even where there is no attempt to rebut the presumption.
31 I find that this particular vehicle was indeed "inoperable" and therefore did not constitute a realistic risk of danger to persons or property, and thus notwithstanding the presumption in section 258(1)(a), the defendant cannot be convicted of the offences.