Justin U. – Dec. 15th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed as there was no evidence that a lawful demand was made for breath samples. This is the type of technical defence that can often carry the day on an Over 80 allegation.
Brian W. – Dec. 1st – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Because of a technical frailty in the Crown’s case, the Crown was agreeable to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. The agreement stipulated that he would be put on a 6 month period of probation the only term being that he not operate a motor vehicle between midnight and 6:00 a.m. during the said six months.
Selladhurai P. – Nov. 30th – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. He was also charged with a breach of his release on the Over 80 charge. I served a motion in advance of trial that alleged several constitutional infringements against my client. Rather than argue the issues at trial, an agreement was reached whereby the defendant plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine. It was also agreed that the breach charge would be withdrawn. Thus, the defendant avoided a criminal record and a driving suspension.
Ivan R. – Nov. 30th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The prosecutor was missing witnesses that he required to prove the case. Although he could have sought an adjournment, an agreement was reached whereby the defendant plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine. As a result the defendant was able to avoid a criminal record and a driving suspension.
Bradley S. – Nov. 23rd – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. We were prepared to argue at trial that the police did not have reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the defendant and demand breath samples from him. The prosecutor acknowledged that there were obstacles to conviction that he could not clear. He withdrew both charges on the trial date.
Lindsay K. – Nov. 20th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. We were prepared to advance an argument at trial that the defendant was not afforded her rights to counsel of choice before taking the breathalyzer tests. Rather than proceed to trial, a resolution was reached whereby the defendant plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. This avoided a criminal record. She was suspended from driving for 90 days and then could only drive pursuant to a curfew for the next 90 days. She also paid a fine. Had she been convicted of Over 80, she would have lost her licence for a minimum 1 year.
Earl P. – Nov. 18th – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. The breathalyzer technician neglected to record the temperature of the “standard solution”, a solution that is run through the breathalyzer to confirm that the breathalyzer is in proper working order. The temperature of the standard solution is an important factor necessary to ensure that the solution is reliable. Rather than argue the matter at trial, we reached a resolution whereby the defendant plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. He received a fine and no driving licence suspension. By pleading guilty to Careless Driving he avoided a criminal record.
Darren D. – Nov. 17th – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. The prosecutor conceded that she would have some challenges proving the case. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a 30 day licence suspension. He was thus able to avoid a criminal conviction and the minimum 1 year suspension that would have gone along with it.
Luciano T. – Nov. 2nd – The defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving and Failing to Stop After Accident. In a fascinating case, 3 teenage girls alleged that the defendant attempted to run them down with his car. In a trial that took 2 days to complete, I was able to lead sufficient evidence to establish that the girls had made the allegation up from whole cloth such that the crown, in her submissions to the court, invited the court to dismiss both charges. The judge did so.
Michael P. – Oct. 23rd – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The arresting officer was not able to attend court on the trial date because of illness. Rather than adjourn the matter and run the risk that they would lose the matter on a delay argument, the Crown agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. As well, the defendant was put on a 6 month period of probation where he could only drive during the 6 months for work purposes. This was an excellent result for the defendant as he was in his early 20’s and a criminal record would have been devastating for him as regards future employment opportunities.
John B. – Oct. 21st – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The arresting officer did not perform a self test on the roadside screening device before using it on the defendant. I was able to persuade the prosecutor that we would have a strong argument, going to the issue of reasonable and probable grounds, based on the failure to perform such self test. As a result, the prosecutor agreed to withdraw the over 80 charge and allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. Part of the plea agreement was that the defendant was to receive a 6 month driving suspension which the defendant was quite prepared to accept as this avoided a criminal record for him.
Michael L. – Oct. 14th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The judge dismissed the Impaired driving charge by finding that the evidence was in sufficient to prove that allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. The over 80 charge was dismissed as the judge found that the tests were not taken as soon as practicable which is a technical statutory precondition for reliance upon breath readings.
Mika K. – Oct. 8th – The defendant had been charged with Over 80. The judge stayed the charge (which is the equivalent of a dismissal) because he found the matter took too long to get to trial.
Grant L. Oct. 6th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Evidence came out during the trial that the arresting officer failed to perform a self test on the roadside screening device before using it on the defendant. I was able to persuade the prosecutor that, if argued, the court may well find that such failure would have precluded a finding that the officer was vested with reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the defendant. As a result, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine, but no suspension.
Nedzmin A. – October 2nd – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The charges were stayed (which is the equivalent of a dismissal) as the trial judge found that the matter had taken too long to get to trial.
David O. – October 1st – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The police were not able to obtain breath samples within a time frame prescribed by statute. In an unusual occurrence, the evidence was completed at trial and I finished making my submissions to the Court when the prosecutor asked for a recess and approached me regarding a resolution of the matter. Ultimately, it was agreed that the defendant would plead guilty to a minor Highway Traffic Act offence for a small fine and no suspension. He also agreed to make a donation to charity as part of the resolution.
Stuart M – September 24th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The trial had begun several months prior to this date. Because of concerns the prosecutor had that the matter would eventually be dismissed for delay, it was agreed that the defendant could plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant thereby avoided a criminal convcition and was able to maintain his driving privileges.
Edmund R. – September 24th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The police were not able to get breath readings from the defendant within the time required by statute. Although the prosecution could have proceeded with the assistance of evidence from an expert witness, it was agreed that the defendant would plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act whereby the defendant was able to avoid a criminal conviction and maintain his driving privileges.
Daniel M. – September 17th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving with a term that for 18 months, he would have to operate a motor vehicle only with an ignition interlock attached. The defendant readitly agreed to this resolution.
Elizabeth D. – September 16th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. I was able to persuade the prosecutor that, because the roadside device had not been calibrated in a timely fashion, reasonable and probable grounds would be strong issue for the defence at trial. It was agreed that the defendant plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. This was of particular significance to the defendant as a criminal conviction would have caused her to lose her employment.
Enzo D. – September 11th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed by the trial judge after a trial. The judge was left in a state of reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was above the legal limit at the time of driving based on his version of alcohol consumption that he provided at trial.
David D. – September 8th – The defendant was charged with driving while disqualified. While the Crown was originally seeking a jail sentence for this offence, I was able to persuade the prosecutor that proof of the offence would be difficult because of certain technical frailties in their case. The matter was ultimately resolved by the defendant pleading guilty to driving under suspension under the Highway Traffic Act. Although this carried a 6 month suspension with it, it avoided the 1 year prohibition that would have come with a conviction for driving while disqualified. Also, instead of a jail sentence, he only had to pay a fine.
Mark B. – September 4th – The defendant was involved in a motor vehicle accident where blood samples were taken. He was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. I was able to persuade the Crown that the results of the blood sample could not be related back to the time of driving. Also, I was able to persuade the prosecutor that any symptoms of alcohol impairment were equally consistent with the after affects of a serious motor vehicle accident. We ultimately agreed to a settlement whereby the defendant plead guilty to a minor traffic offence for a modest fine and no suspension.
Janice S. – September 1st – The defendant was charged Impaired Driving and Over 80. An essential police did not attend on the trial date because she had resigned from the force. The Crown requested an adjournment to have the witness brought to court by subpoena. The Court would not allow the adjournment. Thereafter, the Crown withdrew both charges.
K. K. – August 26th – The defendant, a young offender, was charged with Impaired Driving and Possession of a Narcotic. His readings were below the legal limit. As a result, he was allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving for a brief suspension that allowed for an exception for work purposes. In lieu of the Crown proceeding on the drug charge, the defendant performed some community service hours.
Murray K. – August 26th – The defendant was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while above the legal limit. Had the matter gone to trial, the defendant would have advanced the defence that he had no intention of driving at the time the police observed him asleep in his vehicle. As the defendant had driven to the point where he stopped his vehicle and went to sleep, a resolution was reached whereby he plead guilty to Careless Driving and he received a six month suspension. More importantly for his purposes he was able to avoid a criminal record.
Paul D. – July 30th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. We were able to pursuade the prosecutor that there was a right to counsel issue that may well be fatal to the Crown’s case. As a result, a resolution was reached whereby the defendant plead guilty to careless driving. He thereby avoided a criminal record and the loss of driving privileges.
Henry G. – July 27th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Care or Control and Over 80 Care or Control as well as several Provincial offences. This was a fascinating case that engaged several diverse issues including the following: 1) Whether blood samples taken by a nurse at the request of a police officer are admissible as evidence against an accused. 2) Whether one can be considered in “care or control” of one vehicle when it is being towed by another. After a trial that lasted for several days, the judge dismissed the charges and found that the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in care or control of his motor vehicle on this occasion.(He did not address the blood seizure issue)
William A. – July 22nd – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after a trial. A doubt was raised as to whether a proper formal demand had ever been communicated to the defendant by police. Based on this doubt, the judge dismissed the charge.
Brett S. – July 9th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. As a result of frailties in the Crown’s case, he was allowed to plead guilty to 2 minor Highway Traffic Act offences. He neither lost his licence nor did he obtain a criminal record with this result.
Heather P. – July 8th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. She had low readings, had driven a very short distance and had no criminal past. As a result, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. By being allowed to enter this plea, she was able to avoid the loss of her driving privileges and a criminal record.
Rod N. – July 7th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Because of a technical difficulty that was brought to the attention of the Crown, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. This was particularly beneficial to the defendant as he would have been facing a lifetime suspension of his driver’s licence had he been convicted of the Over 80 charge.
Bill P. – June 29th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed by the trial judge. The Impaired Driving charge was dismissed as the judge found there was no evidence to support that charge. The Over 80 charge was dismissed as the judge accepted the defence argument that the prosecutor failed to lead evidence of a lawful demand for breath samples having been made by the officer to the defendant. This was a classic example of the type of technical defence that can often carry the day in an Over 80 allegation.
Calvin C. – June 25th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. I was able to persuade the prosecutor that he would not be able to prove that the defendant was the operator of the motor vehicle at the time in question. The prosecutor agreed to withdraw the charge in exchange for the defendant making a $200.00 donation to charity.
Jason C. – June 24th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. This matter went on for several days. Although I felt confident that we could prevail were the matter to be taken to its conclusion, the defendant did not want to take any chances. He was a father of 2 young children, one a newborn, and he would have lost his job had he lost his driving privileges. Therefore, he instructed me to attempt to negotiate a settlement with the prosecutor. I succeeeded in persuading the prosecutor to proceed no further with the Over 80 charge in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant was put on a 1 year period of probation one of the terms being that he could only drive during that 1 year period for work purposes. This fulfilled the defendant’s objectives as he was able to maintain his employment. Moreover, it avoided the defendant having a criminal record.
Thomas H. – June 24th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. He was found not guilty as the trial judge had a reasonable doubt on the defence of evidence to the contrary. That is, the judge had a reasonable doubt whether the defendant consumed a sufficient amount of alcohol to put him above the legal limit at the time of driving.
Jeff G. – June 18th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The Crown withdrew the charge. The Crown acknowledged that they had no reasonable prospect of conviction.
Ronald N. – June 9th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Because the Crown acknowledged there were problems proving this case, it was agreed that the defendant would plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and no suspension.
Alexander K. – June 9th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. This matter involved the seizure of blood samples. We were prepared to argue constitutional issues related to the seizure of the said samples but the Crown agreed to allow him to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and a brief suspension of 90 days.
Benjamin S. – June 4th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The defendant was acquitted by the trial judge as the judge had a reasonable doubt whether he was above the legal limit at the time of driving based on the defendant’s version of what he had consumed on the date in question.
Scott H. – June 3rd – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Prior to the trial commencing, I alerted the prosecutor to what I perceived to be a technical difficulty with the Crown’s case. The Crown agreed to withdraw the charge if the defendant pleaded guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine an no suspension. The defendant agreed to do so.
Woo L. – June 1st – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The trial went on for several days. Many issues were argued including an alleged breach of the defendant’s right to speak to counsel who could communicate with the defendant in his mother tongue. On this date, which was set for the continuation of the trial, the prosecutor agreed to invite the court to dismiss the charges in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and no driver’s licence suspension.
Angelo S. – May 29th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The defendant provided 3 samples of his breath into a breathalyzer. One of the samples was close to the legal limit. Although the breathalyzer technician took the position that this sample was inadequate, the prosecutor ultimately agreed with the defence position that that sample was a proper sample and ought to have been accepted by the breathalzyer technician. The sample was close enough to the legal limit that the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty to the Highway Traffic offence of Careless Driving. This avoided a criminal record and licence suspension for the defendant.
Todor B. – May 26th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Refusing to provide a breath sample. Both charges were stayed (which is the equivalent of a dismissal) as the Court ruled that the matter took too long to get to trial thus infringing the defendant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time.
Steven M. – May 13th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. A witness that was necessary for the Crown to proceed with the case mis-diarized what day he was supposed to attend court. Although the prosecutor could have asked for an adjournment, the prosecutor acknowledged that it would be unlikely that such request would succeed. The prosecutor withdrew the charges upon the defendant’s undertaking to make a donation to a charitable organization.
Dustan M. – May 7th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. It was apparent the matter was not going to get reached on the date set for trial. The prosecutor had concerns that the matter was vulnerable to an argument down the road that the matter had taken too long to get to trial. As a result, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving thus avoiding a criminal record and driver’s licence suspension for the defendant.
Jordan B. – May 6th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. At trial, the prosecutor fail to lead evidence that a copy of the certificate that had the breath readings contained therein was served upon the defendant. This is a requirement in the Criminal Code if the Crown wishes to proceed by way of Certificate evidence on a Over 80 charge. A very technical issue but one that was sufficient to result in a dismissal of the charge.
Nadine P. – April 29th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. It appeared that the matter would not be reached that day as another matter had priority and was destined to take much of the court day. Rather than risk the matter being put over to a day far enough in the future such that the matter would be vulnerable to a delay argument by the defence, the Crown agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act whereby she was allowed to maintain her driving privileges. This was particularly important to the defendant who is a single mother who would have been unable to get to her job or attend to the needs of her child had she lost her driver’s licence.
William M. – April 23rd – The defendant was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while in excess of the legal limit. I was able to pursuade the prosecutor to withdraw the charge by convincing him that he had no reasonable prospect of conviction. We ultimately agreed that the defendant would make a donation to a charitable organization whereupon the Crown would withdraw the charge.
Albin S. – April 22nd – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. I served the Crown with a right to counsel motion and on the strength of this motion, the Crown chose to proceed only on the Impaired Driving count. After a day and a half long trial, which included 3 police witnesses all of whom testified they believed the defendant was impaired, the trial judge acquitted the defendant noting inconsistencies in the evidence of the police witnesses and the reliability and credibility of the defendant’s evidence.
James B. – April 15th – The defendant was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while above the legal limit. The Crown allowed the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and no suspension. This was a career-saving resolution for the defendant who is employed as a commercial pilot and would likely have lost his job had he been convicted of a criminal offence.
Martin B. – April 14th – The defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving. The prosecutor withdrew the charge due to a lack of evidence.
Vikram K. – April 7th – The defendant was charged with being Impaired by a drug. We were able to obtain medical reports that indicated that the defendant was a diabetic and that if his blood-sugar dropped too low, his symptoms would be exactly those displayed by the defendant when he was arrested. On the trial date, the Crown withdrew the charge.
Adrian W. – March 13th – The defendant was charged Over 80. Both his readings were under 100. The judge dismissed the charge by finding that the inherent margin of error that the breathalyzer was subject to raised a doubt in his mind as to whether the defendant was above the legal limit at the time of driving.
William M. – March 11th, 2009 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The defendant had lower end readings and the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty to Careless Driving for a 90 day suspension. This avoided a criminal record for the defendant and a much longer suspension which would have followed had he been convicted of the over 80 offence.
Paul D. – March 6th, 2009 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Although the readings were almost three times the legal limit, the arresting officer’s evidence during trial was fraught with technical deficiencies. After his evidence concluded, the prosecutor offered to withdraw the Over 80 charge if the defendant plead guilty to Careless Driving. This offer was accepted by the defendant as it avoided a criminal record and loss of driving privileges.
Sara B. – March 4th, 2009 – The defendant was charged with Impaired driving and Over 80. The prosecutor chose not to proceed on the Over 80 charge for a reason she chose not to disclose to me (I had advanced a constitutional argument in an attempt to exclude the readings and it may be that the prosecutor did not believe she would prevail on that argument). The judge found the evidence of impairment insufficient to convict and acquitted the defendant.
Louise S. – March 2nd, 2009 – The defendant was charged with Impaired driving and Over 80. We advanced an argument that the roadside screening device used by the police was unreliable as it had not been calibrated within a 14 day requirement mandated by the Alcohol Test Committee, a government committee that concerns itself with issues related to breath testing instruments. The prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to a Highway Traffic Act offence thus avoiding a criminal record and loss of driving privileges.
Jesenko G. – February 27th, 2009 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Along with many constitutional issues that were advanced at trial, the defendant testified to a version of alcohol consumption that would have resulted in his being below the legal limit at the time of driving but over at the time he provided his breath samples. The trial judge acquitted him on this last issue and therefore felt no need to address the several constitutional issues advanced during the trial.
Juness R. – February 27th, 2009 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The arresting officer investigated this matter which involved a single motor vehicle accident. Although the officer testified at trial that she observed the defendant sitting in the driver’s seat upon the officer’s arrival (which would have been the legal equivalent of seeing her driving), we were able to prove that this was impossible as another witness stated that the defendant was in his car upon the arrival of the police. The prosecutor ultimately chose to withdraw the charge partway through the trial.
Philip I. – February 18th, 2009 – The defendant was charged with Impaired driving, Refusing to provide a breath sample and Dangerous driving. We advanced an argument that the defendant’s right to counsel had been ingringed because he was not allowed the opportunity to speak to his father who would have been able to assist him in getting counsel. This issue, as well as other concerns the prosecutor had about proof caused the prosecutor to agree to withdraw all three criminal charges and allow the defendant to plead guilty to a Highway Traffic Act offence thus avoiding a criminal record and loss of driving privileges.
Vincent W. – February 11th, 2009 – The defendant was charged with Failing to provide a breath sample into a roadside screening device. As a result of a heavy trial list, the matter could not be reached. The prosecutor had concerns about the matter ultimately being thrown out for delay and allowed the defendant to plead guilty to a Highway Traffic Act offence wherein he avoided a criminal record and loss of licence.
Clayton W. – February 5th, 2009 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Care or control and over 80. The prosecutor determined that he had no reasonable prospect of conviction and withdrew the charges.
John A. – February 4th, 2009 – The defendant was charged with over 80. The prosecutor agreed to reduce the charge to careless driving thus avoiding a criminal record. the defendant was given a 30 days licence suspension after which he could drive pursuant to a curfew thus allowing him to continue driving for work purposes.
Gary S. – January 27th, 2009 – The defendant was charged with over 80. The prosecutor agreed to reduce the charge to Careless driving thus avoiding a criminal record and licence suspension.
Eric I. – January 20th, 2009 – Although the defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80 and had breath readings close to three times the legal limit, the charges were stayed (which is the equivalent of a dismissal) because the judge ruled that the matter had taken too long to get to trial.
Richard W. – January 8th, 2009 – The defendant was charged with dangerous driving and fail to stop after accident. Negotiations with the prosecutor resulted in the defendant being allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act thus avoiding a criminal record for the defendant.
2011 – 2010 – 2009 – 2008
