Peter O. – December 13th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Over 80 and Possession of marijuana. All charges were “stayed” (which is the equivalent of an acquittal) as the trial judge found that the matter had taken too long to get to trial and thereby infringed his right to be tried within a reasonable time.
To P. – December 13th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. When the matter was originally set down for trial, the date was so far into the future that I had indicated my intention to argue that the applicant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed. In order to head off such an argument, the Crown voluntarily withdrew the Over 80 charge to shorten the length of the trial and allowed the matter to be brought forward for an earlier trial date. We went to trial on the Impaired Driving count and the judge dismissed the charge finding that the Crown had failed to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Michael S. – December 10th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. A Crown witness would not have been available on the court date due to medical issues. Rather than run the risk that the new date in the future might be subject to a constitutional argument alleging a breach of the defendant’s right to be tried within a reasaonble time, the Crown allowed the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving for a fine and no other further penalty.
Paul L. – December 6th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The Over 80 charge was dismissed at the end of the Crown’s case on a “non suit” application. This is an application alleging that the Crown had not tendered sufficient evidence to require the defence to respond to the allegation. The application was granted. The basis of the application was that the Crown led no evidence of a proportion of alcohol to blood when the breathalyzer technician gave his evidence. Once the judge came to this decision, I asked for a recess and was able to convince the prosecutor to withdraw the Impaired Driving count in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. He was put on a Provincial Offences probation order that allowed him to drive for work purposes only for 1 year. This resolution avoided a criminal record for the defendant.
Charles R. – December 1st – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed after trial. The Impaired Driving count was dismissed as the judge was left in a state of reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was, in fact, impaired at the time of driving. The Over 80 charge was dismissed as the judge found the Crown had not proven that both breathalyzer tests were taken “as soon as practicable”, which is a requirement in the Criminal Code.
David M. – November 29th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. He was a British national working in Canada. A criminal record would have been fatal to his employment and his ability to stay in Canada. His readings were toward the lower end. After negotiating with the Crown, a resolution was reached whereby the Crown withdrew the Over 80 charge upon the defendant pleading guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. He was fined and received a 45 day licence suspension. This resolution avoided the consequences that would have flowed to the defendant had he been convicted of the Over 80 charge which, in turn, would have resulted in a criminal record for him.
Natalino V. – November 25th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The readings were towards the lower end and the defendant had no criminal record. After negotiating with the Crown, a resolution was reached where the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and a 4 month suspension. This resolution avoided a criminal record for the defendant.
Kashyap P. – November 17th – The defendant was charged with Refusing to Provide a Sample into a roadside screening device and a drug charge. A conviction for either one would have been potentially fatal to his employment. After negotiating with the Crown, a resolution was reached whereby the Refuse charge was withdrawn upon the defendant pleading guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine. He was also put on a probation term for 1 year where he could not drive between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. each day. The drug charge was withdrawn upon the defendant completing some hours of community service.
Amanpreet D. – September 28th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The trial of this matter carried over onto 3 different days. There were several live issues in this matter that included a right to counsel issue and time issues related to the taking of the breath samples. Ultimately, after all the evidence was tendered, the prosecutor agreed to withdraw the Over 80 charge and allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. He was subjected to a fine and a 90 day suspension of his driving privileges with an exception for work purposes. This resolution was beneficial to the defendant in two respects. First of all, a criminal conviction would have been detrimental to his immigration status. Secondly, he was a truck driver and so this resolution saved his job.
Derek G. – September 23rd – The defendant was charged with Over 80. During the course of the trial, the arresting officer tendered inaccurate evidence on two points that were of a technical nature. Ultimately, the prosecutor agreed to withdraw the Over 80 charge and allow the defendant to plead guilty to the offence of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a $500.00 fine and no driving suspension. Most importantly for the defendant, who is a young man, this resolution avoided a criminal record which was his main concern. This is yet another example that illustrates for a technical charge such as an Over 80, often issues will arise during the course of trial that can work to the benefit of the defendant.
Roger B. – September 23rd – The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a sample into a roadside screening device. The defendant was found not guilty after the trial. The judge was left in a state of reasonable doubt as to whether or not the defendant was intentionally not providing a proper sample or whether he was genuinely unable to do so.
Brian W. – September 17th – The defendant was charged with operating a vessel, specifically a house boat, in excess of the legal limit. The stakes were very high in this matter as the defendant had a recent previous conviction and if found guilty would have been exposed to a 30 day jail sentence and a 3 year suspension of his driver’s licence. I launched a challenge to the arresting officer’s right to have compelled the defendant to provide a sample of his breath into the screening device without having had the benefit of his right to counsel. I was also able to point out to the prosecutor that there were time issues that would have made proof of the charge problematic. Ultimately, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to another criminal offence known as Mischief. He was put on a period of probation where his driving privileges were restricted for 2 years where he was allowed to drive for work purposes only and for personal matters (i.e. shopping, etc.) one day of the week. He also had to pay a fine. As a result of this resolution, the defendant avoided a jail sentence and an outright loss of his driving privileges which would have been fatal to his employment.
Adalberto S. – September 15th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was stayed (which is the equivalent of a dismissal) as the trial judge found that the matter took too long to get the trial and that the defendant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.
Donald G. – August 10th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving by drugs and Possession of a narcotic. Because of the defendant’s previous record, had he been convicted of the Impaired Driving count he would have been subject to a lifetime suspension of his Ontario driver’s licence. I served the prosecution with a constitutional argument challenging the manner in which the evidence of drug ingestion had been obtained. On the trial date, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to an alternative offence under the Criminal Code specifically, the offence of Mischief. In addition, the defendant’s driving privileges were suspended for only 6 months.
Andrea M. – August 9th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. I advanced a delay argument as the matter had been adjourned once before. After discussions with the prosecutor, it was agreed that the defendant could plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. She was also put on a provincial offences probation order for 9 months which allowed her to drive for limited purposes (including work) during that 9 month period. After the 9 months elapsed, she would be entitled to her full driving privileges. This resolution also avoided a criminal record being imposed on the defendant.
Jack D. – August 6th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed. The Impaired driving charge was dismissed as the Crown acknowledged at the end of the case that there were too many frailties in the evidence to warrant a conviction on that charge. The Over 80 charge was dismissed as we were able to establish that the police had infringed the defendant’s right to counsel. It was established on the evidence that one of the police officers effectively discouraged the defendant from calling counsel and this resulted in an exclusion of the breath readings and a dismissal of the Over 80 charge.
Anthony V. – August 3rd – The defendant was charged with Over 80. There was a potential issue about the proper functioning of the breathalyzer instrument when the defendant provided his breath samples. Because of the uncertainty associated with this matter, the prosecution agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and no driver’s licence suspension. The defendant avoided a criminal record by virtue of this resolution.
Tyler M. – July 27th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed. The trial judge held that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was above the legal limit at the time of driving (even though there was evidence that he blew over the legal limit at a police detachment). Moreover, the judge held that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired at the time of driving (even though there was evidence that he would have been impaired at the time he provided the breath samples).
Robert H. – July 21st – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Over 80 and the Highway Traffic Act offence of operating a motor vehicle with more than zero milligrams of alcohol in his blood (the defendant had a G2 licence designation). Because of frailties surrounding the Crown’s case related to time issues and issues of identity, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the G2 offence while the Impaired and Over 80 were withdrawn by the prosecution. The young defendant was thus allowed to avoid a criminal conviction. No driver’s licence suspension was imposed by the Court (however, the Highway Traffic Act did provide for a 30 day suspension).
Terry W. – July 8th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The charges were stayed (which is the equivalent of a dismissal) by the trial judge. The trial judge concluded that the defendant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed. It was on this basis that he stayed the charges.
Randy S. – June 30th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. In a bizarre set of facts, the defendant was stopped while operating a golf cart near his cottage. He owned the golf cart and was using it as a recreational vehicle. Indeed, a golf cart is considered a “motor vehicle” under the Criminal Code as it has a motor (even though this golf cart could go no faster than approximately 20 miles per hour). The trial went much of the day. In a conclusion to the trial that was as bizarre as the facts giving rise to the charge, the following occurred: during my final submissions to the judge, an issue arose about specific evidence tendered by one of the witnesses at trial. In order to resolve the dispute, I requested that a portion of the tape (all evidence in criminal trials are tape recorded) be played back. Due to technical difficulties, this could not take place. Rather than having the matter adjourned to another day in order to resolve the technical difficulties, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and a 4 month suspension of his driving privileges with the exception that he could drive for work purposes during that period.
Jonathan Y. – June 29th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge partway through the trial and the judge dismissed the Impaired Driving charge at the end of the trial. The prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge as he acknowledged that the delay between the time of driving and the taking of the breath samples was too long to allow the breath samples to be used against the defendant at trial. The judge dismissed the Impaired Driving charge at the end of the trial as he found that the symptoms of impairment proven by the Crown at trial was insufficient to meet the burden of proof cast upon the Crown which is that proof be beyond a reaonsable doubt. He relied, in large measure, on the appearance of the defendant in the video taken of him at the police station on the occasion of his charge.
Sherry B. – June 24th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. At the conclusion of the Crown’s case, the prosecutor invited the judge to dismiss both charges and the judge did so. The prosecutor invited the judge to dismiss the Over 80 charge as he acknowledged he could not prove the time of driving on the evidence he led. He invited the judge to dismiss the Impaired driving charge as he acknowledged the evidence of impairment at the time of driving was not strong enough to meet the test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
G.H. – June 23rd – The defendant, a high ranking civil servant, was charged with Over 80. I prepared a constitutional argument prior to trial alleging that the defendant’s right to counsel had been infringed. I made several efforts prior to trial to resolve the matter by way of a guilty plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. All of these efforts met with no success. On the trial date, the prosecutor agreed to this resolution. The defendant pled guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and no suspenion and the Over 80 charge was withdrawn. As can be imagined, the defendant’s main concern was avoiding a criminal conviction and this resolution met that objective.
Parminder B. – June 9th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Because of difficulties the Crown was having in securing the attendance of one of the police witnesses, the Crown agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. The agreed resolution also involved a suspension of 90 days but an exception was allowed for work purposes. This resolution avoided a criminal record for the defendant.
Nathan M. – May 21st – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The issue at trial was whether the applicant’s right to counsel of choice had been infringed. The applicant wanted to speak to me the night he was charged but the arresting officer dialed the wrong number. Partway through the trial, it was agreed that rather than concluding the trial and leaving it up to the judge to decide whether the breath readings ought to be excluded from evidence, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. He had to pay a fine and was put on a Provincial Offences probation order for 6 months that allowed him to operate his motor vehicle for limited purposes including going to and from work.
David K. – May 20th – The defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving. Had the matter gone to trial, six witnesses would have testified, three for the Crown and three for the defence. It was clear on the trial date that the matter would not be reached and another trial date would have to be set. Because of concerns the prosecutor had that the matter might be dismissed on the subsequent trial date because the matter would have taken too long to get to trial, he agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving, a non-criminal Highway Traffic Act offence, for a brief 60 day suspension.
Derek B. – May 19th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Partway through the trial, I was able to pursuade the prosecutor that he would have difficulty proving his case beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence of the arresting officer was fraught with deficiencies of a technical nature. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and no driver’s licence suspension. This resolution also avoided a criminal conviction for the defendant.
Andrzej M. – May 14th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Due to witness problems experienced by the Crown, the prosecutor allowed the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine. This allowed the defendant to avoida criminal conviction and to avoid a driver’s licence suspension.
Atul K. – May 12th – The defendant was charged with Refusing to provide a breath sample into a roadside screening device. The prosecutor invited the judge to dismiss the charge after I cross-examined the arresting officer. The officer agreed that it would appear to him that the defendant was under some form of disability rather than intentionally failing to provide a proper sample.
Jesse L. – April 29th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. While we had requested full disclosure early on in the proceedings, we were only provided with additional disclosure very close to the trial date. While the defence would have been entitled to an adjournment, the Crown was agreeable, because of the late disclosure, to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and brief suspension of 30 days. This avoided a criminal record for the defendant which was a major concern of his.
Manjit G. – April 28th – The defendant was charged with Fail to stop after accident and Obstruct Police. Partway through the trial, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to a Highway Traffic Act offence where he was allowed to drive for work purposes. The Crown agreed to this resolution because of difficulties from the evidence of the civilian witnesses for the Crown that became evident during cross examination.
Nicholas V. – April 28th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after a trial. This is a perfect example of the type of technical defence that can often lead to success in an Over 80 charge. The arresting officer indicated a time that he turned the defendant over to the breathalyzer technician. However, the certificate of the breathalyzer technician indicated the time of the first breath reading as being 3 minutes before the time testified to by the arresting officer. This was sufficient to raise a doubt as to the time of the breath readings and an acquittal was entered by the trial judge.
Carla J. – April 27th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. The trial judge ruled that the arresting officer did not have sufficient grounds to arrest the defendant and demand breath samples from her. This ruling resulted in both allegations being dismissed.
Fedja C. – April 23rd – The defendant was charged with Refusing to accompany a police officer for the purpose of providing breath samples. The charge was dismissed. While there were a host of frailties with the Crown’s evidence, what one the day was the fact that the arresting officer failed to properly identify the roadside screening device, the fail on which afforded the arresting officer his grounds to make the demand for breath samples in the first place.
Andrew B. – April 7th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Because of witness difficulties, the Crown was required to withdraw the charge against the defendant on the trial date.
Darren B. – March 31st – The defendant was charged with Over 80. His readings were very close to the legal limit and he had no criminal record. The Crown allowed him to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a very brief licence suspension.
Michael M. – March 26th – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. We were able to pursuade the Crown that they had difficulties with their case including the fact that it may have taken too long to get to trial. The Crown agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act whereby the defendant paid a fine but did not lose his driving privileges nor did he obtain a criminal record.
Harvey J. – March 15th – The defendant was charged with Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample into a roadside screening device. In an unusual and very technical issue, the police drafted the “information” (charging document) incorrectly by alleging in the information that the defendant had failed to provide a sample into the breathalyzer instrument rather than the screening device. Although this was an error that could have been corrected, it would have allowed options to the defendant that he wouldn’t otherwise have had, for example, the right to a jury trial. In order to avoid this outcome, the Crown agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine an no suspension of his driving privileges.
Christopher S. – March 11th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Over 80, Fail to Attend Court and the Highway Traffic Act offence of Operating a Motor Vehicle with any alcohol in his system contrary to his G2 status. I was able to pursuade the Crown that they would have had difficulties proving the identity of the driver of the motor vehicle in question. An agreement was reached whereby the defenddant plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and no suspension of his driving privileges. All criminal charges as well as the G2 charge were withdrawn. The defendant was a young male and avoiding a criminal record was obviously very important to him.
Todd M. – Feb. 19th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The defendant advanced an argument as to whether he had been afforded his right to counsel of choice. During the trial, evidence was adduced during my cross-examination of the officer that revealed the officer had destroyed scratch pad notes that would have included reference to an issue crucial to the determination of the right to counsel argument. During a break in the trial, I confronted the Crown about this and we ultimately agreed to resolving the matter by allowing the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. He received a fine and a six month probation order that allowed him to operate his motor vehicle for work purposes only. After the six months, his driving privileges would be fully restored. This resolution avoided a criminal record for the defendant which was his main concern as such a record would have likely been fatal to his employment.
Antal S. – Feb. 18th – The defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving. He entered onto a highway that had been closed for repairs. We were able to pursuade the prosecutor that although the act itself was outrageous, it probably did not amount to dangerous driving as there was no evidence that any of the construction workers that were on the highway at the time were ever in danger. The matter was resolved by way of a plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act which included a fine and a period of probation for 12 months wherein the defendant could not drive between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Joseph K. – Feb. 18 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed as the judge found there was a reasonable doubt as to whether the breath readings obtained at the police station accurately reflected the defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving.
Thomas M. – Jan. 29th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. A Crown witness failed to attend at trial which left open the prospect that the Crown may not be able to prove their case were the matter to go to trial. The prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act thus avoiding a criminal conviction for the defendant. The defendant was put on probation for 9 months during which time he could operate his motor vehicle for work purposes only. Thereafter he would be entitled to operate his motor vehicle for all purposes.
Dharshan R. – Jan. 28th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. There was some issue as to whether the Crown would be able to prove that the breath samples were taken within the time frame that is mandated by the Criminal Code. As such, an agreement was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act and the Over 80 charge was withdrawn. The defendant was put on a 9 month period of probation during which time he could operate his motor vehicle for work purposes only. After the 9 month period, the defendant would be entitled to operate his motor vehicle for all purposes. The defendant was youthful and therefore, he avoidance of a criminal record was particularly significant for him.
Tracy D. – Jan. 27th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Had this matter gone to trial, several interesting issues would have been argued. Such issues included whether the arresting officer could have made a lawful roadside screening device demand in circumstances where he could smell alcohol in the vehicle but not on the defendant’s breath. A second interesting argument would have been whether the arresting officer could have lawfully stopped the defendant randomly in an area that was deemed an aboriginal reservation. After some negotiations, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. He was put on probation for six months during which time he was allowed to operate his motor vehicle for work purposes only. Once the six month period came to an end, he would be entitled to operate his motor vehicle for all purposes. This resolution also avoided a criminal record for the defendant which was particularly significant for the defendant for his employment as he would have lost his employment if he had obtained a criminal record.
Randolph G. – Jan. 26th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The Crown was faced with a host of problems in this case including an issue of drinking after driving and some indecision on the part of the arresting officer as to whether she ought to arrest the defendant with or without the assistance of a roadside screening device. The Crown agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to 2 minor Highway Traffic Act offences for modest fines. The Impaired and Over 80 charges were withdrawn.
Ireneusz S. – Jan. 22nd – The defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving, Fail to Stop for Police and Stunt Driving. All three charges were stayed (which is the equivalend of a dismissal) as the trial judge found that the matters took too long to get to trial and thereby infringed the defendant’s constitutional right to be tried within a reasonable time.
Rodney H. – Jan. 20th – The defendant was charged with Over 80 and Possession of marijuana. The over 80 charge was dismissed after a trial. The judge dismissed the charge by finding that the arresting officer lacked the grounds in law to arrest the defendant and make a lawful breath demand of him. The drug charge was withdrawn upon the defendant’s undertaking to make a charitable donation.
Richard A. – Jan 19th – The defendant was charged with having the care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired and having the care or control of a motor vehicle while over the legal limit of alcohol. He had a previous conviction approximately 10 years prior to this occurrence. I was able to persuade the Crown not to proceed on the Impaired and Over 80 counts (which would have resulted in an automatic driving prohibition of a minimum of 1 year ) and instead allow the defendant to plead guilty to another criminal offence, specifically, mischief. By agreement, he was put on a probation order of 1 year the last 8 months of which he could operate his motor vehicle for work purposes only.
Chad C. Jan. 18th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Because of a contradiction between the certificate of the qualified technician and the notes of the qualified technician, the Crown allowed the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act thus avoiding a criminal record and a loss of licence suspension.
Sean S. – Jan. 13th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. A Crown witness was unavailable for the trial date. Rather than seeking an adjournment, which the Court could have denied or, if granted, might leave the Crown vulnerable to a delay argument on the next court date, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a 90 day suspension. This avoided a criminal conviction for the defendant as well as an automatic 1 year driving prohibition.
Chris L. – Jan. 5th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Because of a technicial frailty in the Crown’s case the Crown agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act thus avoideing a criminal record. He was also able to continue driving as he was put on a Provincial Offences Probation order where he could continue operating his motor vehicle so long as it was equipped with an ignition interlock device. This condition was for a 1 year period after which time he could remove the device.
