In a hypothetical scenario, everytime in the past, when Mr. Peter went from city A to a city B on a road C, his car got stolen about in the middle of the road C. It happened say 100 times. There are only options roads C and D and to use a road D one has to steal a car. There are no indications of anyone having an intention to steal his car on the road C, there is only the 100 cases in which such a robbery took place everytime he went on the road C. Can Mr. Peter steal a car to use a different road D to get from A to B, in order to prevent another car theft on the road C from happening? Thank you.
The closest possible defence in Canadian law would be the defence of necessity. But for this defence to be available, "the situation must be so emergent and the peril must be so pressing that normal human instincts cry out for action and make a counsel of patience unreasonable." There must also be "no reasonable legal alternative" to avoid the imminent peril. See generally, Perka v. The Queen,  2 S.C.R. 232.
The scenario you describe lacks imminent peril. There are also reasonable legal alternatives.