Impaired Driving Lawyer - Experience is the key.

Brian Starkman

Over 80 DUI/DWI (Ontario)

Lawyer Brian Starkman DUI/DWI (Ontario)

Ontario Impaired Driving Defence

This is the most well known of the drinking and driving offences. However, misconceptions abound regarding what the allegation really entails. The prosecution must prove that the driver’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol. The Crown does not need to prove that any such impairment by alcohol had a noticeable effect on the driving of the accused. Moreover, one need not be over the legal limit of alcohol to be impaired by alcohol. If you have a low tolerance for alcohol, you may be convicted of impaired operation of a motor vehicle even if your breath samples were below the legal limit. Indeed, you could have no alcohol in your system and still be convicted of impaired driving if the prosecution can prove that impairment was as a result of the ingestion of drugs (legal or otherwise).

Sometimes an accused person will have an explanation as to why they may have appeared under the influence of alcohol when they really were not.

For example, after a significant motor vehicle accident, a driver will often exhibit many of the same symptoms they might if they were impaired i.e. slurred speech, unsteadiness on feet.

Again, a skilled lawyer can effectively bring out these alternative explanations with an eye towards creating reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge. A competent cross examiner will know what questions to ask and just as importantly what questions not to ask.

If you want to maintain your driving privileges after being charged with a drinking and driving offence, you must dispute the charge. Unlike most other criminal charges, a plea bargain is usually out of the question for a drinking and driving charge. Crown Attorneys are directed by their superiors to prosecute drinking and driving offences to their fullest extent. Therefore, if you expect to have any realistic chance of saving your licence, you will need to hire a lawyer to challenge the charges at trial.

Impaired Driving
Refuse Breathalyzer
Over 80



OVER 80 Charge

This is the most common drinking and driving allegation. If the prosecution can prove that at the time of driving your blood alcohol level was in excess of that legal limit, you will be found guilty.

Video - Impaired Driving Solutions - Lawyer Brian Starkman DUI/DWI (Ontario)

DUI Defence Video’s



Appearing In Court

If you’ve been charged with impaired driving in Brampton or Etobicoke, securing an experienced impaired driving lawyer is critical to protecting your licence, your record, and your future. At Over 80 Impaired Driving Solutions, we provide focused legal defence for charges including impaired operation, “Over 80,” and refusal to provide a breath sample—offences that carry serious penalties under the Criminal Code of Canada. With conveniently located offices in Brampton and Etobicoke, our firm understands the local court systems and builds strategic defences tailored to each case. Impaired driving charges often rely on complex evidence such as breathalyzer results and police procedure, and an experienced lawyer can identify weaknesses that may lead to reduced charges or dismissal. Don’t risk severe consequences like licence suspension, fines, or a criminal record—contact a trusted Brampton and Etobicoke impaired driving lawyer today for a confidential consultation and strong legal representation.

Contact Brian Starkman Today

In order to assess your chances of success at trial, please complete the following confidential questionnaire.

Contact Form

Testimonials DUI/DWI Lawyer (Ontario)

The defendant was charged with Over 80. The breath readings were so close to the legal limit that the prosecutor ultimately conceded that he may not be able to prove that the defendant was above the legal limit at the time of driving. As a result, the prosecutor withdrew the charge.

Derek P.

The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample into a breathalyzer. Negotiations with the prosecutor resulted in the defendant being allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and a period of probation where the defendant must have an ignition interlock device installed in his car. The criminal charges were withdrawn.

Jatinder S.

The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Negotiations with the prosecutor reached a successful conclusion. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. He was required to pay a fine and to drive with an ignition interlock device in his car for a period of time. The prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.

Michael N.

Please note that past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.

Information Submission Form

Although not all questions may apply to your case, we do ask that you complete as many of the fields as possible to better help us understand your situation. (Fields marked with * indicated required information)

Once submitted, our office will contact you to setup a no obligation, confidential, no fee interview.