Jeevan P. – December 5th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. After trial, the trial judge dismissed the charge. The judge ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove that there was at least 15 minutes separating the two breath tests that were provided by the defendant at the police station. This is a requirement of the Criminal Code. This type of case underscores just how technical the defences to an Over 80 charge can be.
Gino A. – December 2nd – The defendant was charged with Over 80. After a trial, this charge was dismissed by the trial judge. The judge found that the prosecution had failed to lead evidence that the defendant was either the driver of the vehicle in question or that he was in “care or control” of the said vehicle.
Matthew M. – November 28th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. During the evidence of the arresting officer, I was able to raise sufficient issues on cross-examination that the prosecutor was willing to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and no suspension. The prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.
Steven W. – November 25th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Prior to trial, the prosecutor agreed to withdraw the criminal charge and allowed the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and no suspension. The prosecutor agreed to do so because there were technical defects in the prosecutor’s case that were concerning enough to the prosecutor that they were prepared to withdraw the criminal charge.
Allan S. – November 23rd – The defendant was charged with Over 80. On a previous date, the trial began. At the end of the prosecutor’s case, I made certain arguments regarding the sufficiency of the police evidence on technical points of law. The matter was adjourned for the prosecutor to respond to my arguments. Instead of responding, the prosecutor and I reached a resolution whereby the Over 80 charge was withdrawn and the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a 90 day licence suspension.
Tyler C. – November 10th – The defendant was charged with Fail to Stop at the scene of an accident, Fail to Report an accident and Operate a motor vehicle without a valide permit. An agreement was reached with the prosecutor whereby the defendant pled guilty to Careless Driving under th Highway Traffic Act and received a $500.00 fine and 3 month driving prohibition. All other charged were withdrawn by the Crown.
Francois J. – November 8th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. After trial, both charges were dismissed. The impaired driving count was dismissed as the trial judge found the evidence did not reach the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Over 80 charge was dismissed as the certificate of breath readings had a technical flaw that the Crown conceded was fatal to the charge. Had teh defendant been convicted, he would have been facing a jail sentence and a 3 year driving prohibition as he already had a previous conviction for the same offence. It should also be noted that his breath readings were over 3 times the legal limit which underscores the fact that a defence can often succeed no matter how high the readings are.
Kristen C. – November 7th – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. The defendant was a young female who was extremely concerned about the possibility of a criminal conviction as this would have been fatal to her employment. There was an issue regarding whether the defendant had her right to speak to a lawyer infringed . The prosecutor was concerned enough about the viability of this defence that she agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and a 3 month period of probation whereby the defandant could drive for work purposes only. The criminal charges were withdrawn.
Mark S. – November 1st – The defendant was charged with Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample (a Criminal Code DUI charge) and Stunt Driving (a Highway Traffic Act charge). After the Crown was informed of how we intended to defend the case, the Crown asked the Judge to stay the criminal charge. In exchange for agreeing to not re-initiate the prosecution against the defendant, the defendant agreed to plead guilty to Stunt Driving. The agreed-upon penalty was a fine,no loss of driving privileges and no criminal record.
Brayner P. – October 18th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80 (a.k.a. DUI). After the trial had begun and the Crown’s first witness (a Canada Border Services officer) had been cross-examined, the Crown agreed to withdraw all criminal charges. The defendant plead guilty to an offence under the Highway Traffic Act, thereby avoiding a criminal record while also maintaining daytime driving privileges.
Cristache D. – October 7th – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. The Crown stayed the charges because no interpreter was available for trial. This was the second trial date set with the same problem, i.e. no intrepreter was scheduled for the first trial date despite one being ordered when the trial date was set.
Dale C. – October 7th – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. The defence moved to have the information quashed for lack of jurisdiction. The Crown made a determined effort to save their case however, the defence succeeded in convincing the judge to dismiss the case. All charges dismissed.
Naveenan T. – September 27th – The defendant was charged with Over 80 (aka DUI). Following lenghty negotiations with the Crown, the Crown agreed to withdraw the criminal charge. The defendant then plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. As a result, the defendant avoided a criminal record and maintained daytime driving privileges.
Farhad K. – September 26th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The trial judge dismissed both charges at the end of the trial. In very unusual facts, a security guard witnessed the defendant being assaulted while the defendant was in his car stationery near a bar. Police were called to investigate the assault but ultimately investigated the defendant for drinking and driving. In dismissing the charges, the trial judge accepted my argument that once the police were called by the defendant, a break in the chain of operations and care or control between the defendant and his motor vehicle had been established. Therefore, the evidence of breath readings subsequently taken by police and physical symptoms of impaiment observed by police upon arrest could not be connected to the point when the defendant either operated or had care or control of his motor vehicle.
Mackenzie E. – September 21st – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The trial judge dismissed the charge at the end of the trial. No evidence was led as to there being a lawful breathalyzer demand made to the defendant upon his arrest, a prerequisite to the Crown using the breath samples taken at the station to establish the driver’s alcohol level at the time of driving. A dispute arose during legal submissions as to what exactly the evidence was of the arresting officer. As a result, I suggested that the audio tape of the officer’s evidence be played back. It was and indeed the tape revealed that no evidence of the demand had been led in evidence during the Crown’s case.
Richard L. – September 15th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Care or Control of a motor vehicle and Over 80 Care of Control of a motor vehicle. The trial judge dismissed both charges. The trial judge held that, while the defendant was in the drivers’ seat of the motor vehicle he had no intention of operating the motor vehicle and there was no risk that the vehicle would otherwise have been set in motion by the defendant. It should be noted that the arresting officer testified that the engine was running when he observed the defendant in the motor vehicle. Several defence witnesses contradicted this evidence. The trial judge ultimately ruled that he had a reasonable doubt on this point. This was an important ruling in the case that contributed significantly to the charges being dismissed by the trial judge.
Nathalie C. – September 15th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was stayed by the judge (a stay is the equivalent of a dismissal). The judge found that the matter had taken too long to get to trial and thereby infringed the defendant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time.
Charles L. – September 12th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The Crown withdrew the charge on the trial date. The Crown acknowledged to the court that they would not be able to prove the time of driving and conceded that without being able to do so, there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
Gregory P. – August 24th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The matter did not complete on the first date set for trial and was adjourned to this date to continue. Prior to this date, I served the prosecution with a constitutional motion alleging that the defendant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed. Rather than argue the issue, an agreement was reached with the prosecutor whereby the criminal charge was withdrawn and the defendant entered a guilty plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. He received a fine, no suspension and no criminal record.
Matthew B. – August 23rd – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. I served the prosecution with a constitutional argument alleging that the arresting officer did not have the grounds to arrest the defendant and demand breath samples from him. The argument was based on the fact that, while the arresting officer did observe symptoms consistent with impairment by alcohol, he did not detect an odour of alcohol nor did the defendant admit to any recent consumption of alcohol. The Crown acknowledged the strength of this argument and agreed to withdraw the criminal charges if the defendant agreed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The defendant did agree to enter a guilty plea to Careless Driving and received a fine with no suspension of his driving privileges and no criminal record.
Ryan C. – August 9th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The Crown withdrew the charge. The Crown acknowledged to the court that they would be unable to prove the time of driving which was necessary in order to prove the allegation.
Patricia S. – August 5th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving (a.k.a. DUI) and Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample. The defence moved to have the Information quashed for lack of jurisdiction. The motion was granted and all charges were dismissed. In layman’s terms, the case was thrown out on a technicality.
Eric H. – August 3rd – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The prosecutor recognized weaknesses in their case including a lengthy delay at the roadside before the defendant was arrested. As a result, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine. Although the prosecutor asked the judge to impose some form of licence suspension, I was able to pursuade the judge not to do so. The Over 80 charge was withdrawn.
Kevin F. – August 2nd – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Over 80 and Fail to Stop after accident. During the trial, it became apparent that the defendant was arrested after police unlawfully entered his house. As a result, the trial judge excluded all evidence subsequent to the arrest that would have established the identity of the defendant as the driver in question. With no evidence of identity, the trial judge dismissed all three charges.
Ian G. – July 20th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Dangerous Driving and Obstruct Peace Officer. Following intensive negotiations on the day of trial, the Crown agreed to withdraw all three criminal charges and the defendant pled guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. This matter is an example of how weaknesses in the Crown’s case can often only be exposed by forcingthe issue and demanding a trial.
Ryan A. – July 5th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. After a full trial the charges were dismissed entirely. Evidence from the Crown witnesses revealed that the identification of the defendant as the driver was unreliable due to a failure on the police’s part to act promptly and according to procedure.
Craig G. – June 30th – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. As the readings were towards the lower end and as there was a concern from the prosecutor’s prospective as to whether they would lose an argument regarding whether the matter had taken too long to get to trial, the Crown agreed to the following resolution: Impaired and Over 80 charges were withdrawn and the defendant pled guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. He was put on a Provincial Offences probation order that restricted his driving for 6 months but that allowed him to continue to drive for work purposes. He also paid a fine. This resolution avoided a criminal record for the defendant.
Allan D. – June 29th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. When the Crown concluded calling its case, I asked the court for a recess so that I could discuss matters with the prosecutor. I was able to pursuade the prosecutor of a difficulty in the case related to the wording used by the arresting officer for the demand for breath samples. As a result of this problem, a resolution was fashioned whereby the Crown withdrew the Over 80 charge and allowed the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. A fine was imposed but the defendant did not receive a licence suspension nor did he receive a criminal record.
Harvey H. – June 22nd – The defendant was charged with Over 80. On the day of trial, the prosecutor expressed concerns as to whether he would be able to prove that the breath tests were taken within the time period prescribed by the Criminal Code. As a result, he offered a resolution to the defendant whereby he would withdraw the criminal charge if the defendant pled guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. This resulted in the defendant paying a fine but maintaining his driving privileges and not receiving a criminal record.
Aaron M. – June 17th – The defendant was charged with Ove r80. The charge was dismissed after the trial. Although several issues were arguable, the first issue I argued was accepted by the trial judge and this resulted in the dismissal of the charge. Specifically, the trial judge found that there was no evidence the arresting officer issued a lawful demand for breath samples to the defendant upon his arrest. A conviction would have been fatal to the defendant’s employment as his job required him to drive a company car in which he could not have installed an ignition interlock device.
Jihoon P. – June 14th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. I had provided the Crown with notice of certain constitutional arguments I would be raising at trial. The prosecutor contacted me prior to trial and advised that he had concerns that he would lose the said arguments. He also advised that he may have problems securing the attendance of one of his witnesses. As a result, he was prepared to offer a resolution whereby he would withdraw the Over 80 charge if the defendant pled guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant agreed to this resolution as the only penalty was a fine. He thereby avoided a criminal record and a licence suspension.
Kevin C. – June 9th- The defendant was charged with Fail to Provide Breath Sample. The defendant was discharged at the end of the Crown’s case (which is the equivalent of an acquittal) as the judge found the prosecution had failed to present a prima facie case that the arresting officer had the grounds to make a lawful breath demand. The defendant had a previous related conviction so a finding of guilt would likely have resulted in a jail sentence and an extended licence suspension.
John T. – June 8th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. I detected a problem with the Crown’s case related to their ability to prove that the breath samples were taken within the prescribed time requirements set out in the Criminal Code. After negotiations with the prosecutor, it was agreed that the Over 80 charge would be withdrawn and instead, the defendant would plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine. The defendant left court with no driver’s licence suspension and without a criminal record.
Balwant P. – June 1st – The defendant was charged with Failing to Provide a Sample of his breath into a roadside screening device. The charge was dismissed by the trial judge. The trial judge ruled that the Crown had not proven that the police officer made a lawful demand to the defendant. In any event, the trial judge also ruled that, even if the demand was lawful, the Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally failed to comply rather than simply being physically unable to provide the said breath sample. The defendant was a taxi driver so a conviction clearly would have been fatal to his employment.
Aaron S. – May 31st – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The defendant’s readings were towards the lower end and he had no criminal history. As a result, the Crown withdrew the charge after the defendant agreed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. He received a fine and a brief 30 day licence suspension. The defendant was youthful and therefore the avoidance of a criminal conviction was of utmost imporantce to him.
John V. – May 30th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. I argued that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the defendant and demand breath samples from him. The trial Judge agreed that the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds but a second issue was left to be argued which was whether the lack of grounds justified the exclusion of the results of the breath samples as well as other relevant evidence. Instead of proceeding with that phase of the argument, the Crown agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the offence of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and no suspension. As a result, the prosecutor did not proceed with the two criminal charges.
Robert H. – May 18th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. At the conclusion of the trial, I argued that the Crown had not proven that the defendant was the driver of the motor vehicle in question. The Judge asked that the matter be adjourned so that she could review the transcript of evidence. After the matter was adjourned, the Crown and I had discusssions whereupon it was agreed that instead of the Judge ruling on this issue one way or the other, the Crown would allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and no suspension of his driving privileges. The matter was brought forward for such a resolution after which the Crown invited the court to dismiss both criminal charges and she did so.
Shane H. – May 3rd – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. A key witness was not able to attend for the Crown that day. The Prosecutor sought to adjourn the matter to secure the attendance of this witness. The judge ruled that the police had not exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to secure the attendance of the witness for trial. The trial judge disallowed the Crown’s application to adjourn the matter. As a result, the Prosecutor withdrew both charges.
Daniel H. – May 3rd – The defendant was charged with the criminal offence of Over 80. Partway through the trial, the Crown agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act after which all criminal charges were withdrawn. The defendant left the courthouse without a criminal record and able to begin his career in a profession he might not have been able to enter had he been convicted.
Stephen H. – April 29th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Although the matter was set for trial for a full day, another matter proceeded first and took much of the day to complete. The Prosecutor was concerned that an adjournment would result in the charges being vulnerable to a constitutional argument that the matter had taken too long to proceed to trial. As a result, the Prosecutor allowed the defendant to plead guilty to the offence of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. The Prosecutor would not ask for a suspension so long as the defendant showed proof that he had completed an alcohol counselling program. The Prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.
Sharron B. – April 20th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The matter commenced on one day but could not be finished. On the second day set for trial the matter could not proceed because a transcript of the first trial date was not made available to the defence notwithstanding a timely request by the defence for a production of the said transcript thus the matter had to be adjourned again. The Prosecutor had concerns that the matter would now be vulnerable to a constitutional argument that the matter had taken too long to complete. As a result, a resolution was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and some minor restrictions to her driving privileges for six months. Both the criminal charges were stayed (which is the equivalent of a dismissal).
Lukasz K. – April 20th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Prior to the start of the trial, the Prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges. The Prosecutor conceded to the Court that he would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was the driver of the motor vehicle in question. As a result, the Prosecutor conceded that he had no reasonable prospect of conviction.
Zoltan T. – April 14th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Partway through the trial, the Crown agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act after which all criminal charges were withdrawn. The reason for this agreement was that the Crown had concerns about their ability to prove that the defendant was above the legal limit and impaired at the time of driving as there was reliable evidence before the court that the defendant had consumed a large amount of alcohol moments before he was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The significance of this is that alcohol takes time to absorb into the bloodstream and the evidence at trial may well have left the judge in a state of reasonable doubt as to whether there was sufficient absorption at the time of the accident to prove that the defendant was either impaired or over 80 at the time of driving even though he was well above the legal limit (indeed, more than double the legal limit) at the time he provided breath samples at the police station. He was sentenced to a substantial fine and a 30 day suspension of his driving privileges which was a very positive outcome for the defendant as he had two previous criminal driving offences on his record and would not doubt have received a significant jail sentence and a driving prohibition of several years had he been convicted by the judge.
John T. – April 13th – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. The Crown withdrew all charges as the arresting officer did not attend court and there was no explanation available to the prosecutor for this non-attendance.
Wayne C. – April 12th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The Crown withdrew all of the charges as one of their witnesses was ill and could not attend court. Although this would normally be the basis for a legitimate adjournment request, the matter had been adjourned once before because of the illness of another Crown witness and because of that delay, I had already brought a motion before the court to stay the charges because of delay. Rather than seek a second adjournment which would have only made my motion stronger on a subsequent date, the Crown chose to withdraw the charges.
Todd N. – April 7th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was stayed (which is the equivalent of a dismissal) by the trial judge as the judge ruled the matter had taken too long to get to trial.
Wendy T. – March 7th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after trial. The judge concluded that the prosecution had not proven that the tests were taken “as soon as practicable” which is a requirement in the Criminal Code.
Ian B. – February 28th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed by the trial judge. During my submissions at the end of the trial, I pointed out four separate arguments to the court three of which were technical in nature and one of which was constitutional in nature. In dismissing the charge, the trial judge commented that he would have dismissed the charge based on any one of those arguments leaving alone considering the four arguments cumulatively. This was a classic case where technical issues can often carry the day in an Over 80 charge even when breath readings are high as they were in this case, specifically, more than three times the legal limit.
Travis A. – February 24th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. There was a matter for trial that was to precede the defendant’s matter for trial that day. That matter was expected to go the entire day. As the defendant had provided breath readings that were only marginally above the legal limit and as the Crown ran the risk of the matter being adjourned and subject to a possible delay argument on a subsequent date, the Crown agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving and all criminal charges were withdrawn. This is a non-criminal Highway Traffic Act offence and thus allowed the defendant to avoid a criminal record which was a major concern for the young defendant. He was also required to pay a fine and make a charitable donation but was not subject to a licence suspension. The timing of the resolution discussions was fortuitous as soon after the Prosecutor agreed to this resolution, the other matter that was expected to proceed all day concluded abruptly. However, in our system of justice, an offer made is generally one that is required to be fulfilled even if circumstances change in a material way.
Tamara S. – February 22nd – The defendant was charged with Fail to Stop after Accident under the Criminal Code. Had she been convicted, the young mother to be would have obtained a criminal record and would have been subject to a 1 year driving prohibition. However, there was a genuine legal issue that existed as to whether her conduct fell within the four corners of the specific section of the Criminal Code. In order to avoide the risk of an adverse finding, the Prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to a minor Highway Traffic Act offence, specifically, Fail to Report Accident. All criminal charges were withdrawn. She received a $200.00 fine but left court without a criminal record or a driver’s licence suspension.
Scott D. – February 18th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. This was a case that involved a motor vehicle accident where blood samples had to be taken from the defendant. Partway through the trial, it became apparent there were problems of proof related in the Crown’s case related to issues such as 1) identification of the defendant as the driver at the time in question and 2) continuity of the blood samples. Discussions were held and a resolution was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to another criminal offence, specifically, mischief. The defendant was put on probation where he could drive for limited purposes only but this included employment so the defendant was able to save his job. Moreover, the defendant was required to pay a fine however, as he had several related previous convictions, had there been a finding of guilt on one of the two original charges, he would have been facing a lengthy jail sentence. A very positive outcome to be sure.
Scott M. – February 11th – The defendant was charged with Refusing to Provide a Sample into a Roadside Screening Device. The charge was dismissed by the trial judge at the end of the trial. Remarkably (but quite correctly) the trial judge ruled that the Crown had not proven that the screening device was in proper working order. While two officers that were involved in this investigation testified to seeing error codes on the screening device that they attributed to insufficient samples being provided by the defendant, expert evidence established that no such error codes exist for the screening device that was being used on this occasion. The judge also had a reasonable doubt as to whether a tone that indicates that the device is in proper working order was emitted when the device was tested by the officer. As a resutl of the above, the charge was dismissed. This was particularly fortunate for the defendant as the trial judge went to great lengths in his judgment in explaining why he found the evidence of the defendant himself, to be completely unworthy of belief. This is a good example of a case where a charge can be dismissed even in circumstances where the defendant’s evidence is rejected by a Court.
Robert S. – February 10th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation of a motor vehicle. He travelled a long distance to work every week and picked up co-workers along the way. A loss of his licence would have been devastating for him and his family. At trial, we were able to point out numerous inconsistencies in the officers’ evidence, including the fact that the officers’ evidence about signs of impairment was not supported by the video of our client in the police cells. The judge did not believe the officers’ evidence and the charge was dismissed.
Dan G. – February 3rd – The defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving and Possession of marijuana under the Criminal Code and Stunt Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. Police clocked the defendant driving at speeds in excess of 170 kilometres an hour. The Crown agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Stunt Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and no suspension. All criminal charges were withdrawn. The Dangerous Driving charge under the Criminal Code was withdrawn and the drug charge was also withdrawn upon proof the defendant had made a charitable donation. This resolution allowed the defendant to avoid a criminal conviction and a driver’s licence suspension. Indeed, on these facts, it would not be unusual for a defendant to not only end up with a criminal record and a lengthy suspension but also a period of time in jail. The defendant benefitted from having no previous record.
Sarah M. – January 31st – The defendant was charged with Refuse to Provide a Breath Sample and Dangerous Driving. At the end of the Crown’s case, I had discussions with the Prosecutor and was able to persuade her that there were difficulties related to proving both counts. She agreed to request the trial judge to dismiss all criminal charges on the condition that the defendant plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and no suspension. The defendant agreed to this resolution as it avoided a criminal record for her as well as allowing her to maintain her driving privileges.
L.P. – January 28th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. There was a constitutional issue that was to be argued in this matter. The readings were towards the lower end and the defendant had no criminal record. As a result, the Crown agreed to withdraw all criminal charges and allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a brief 30 day suspension and a fine. This avoided a criminal record for the defendant.
Neil F. – January 27th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. In a very unusual occurrence, the information (which is the charging document before the court that confers jurisdiction on the judge to proceed with the trial) was declared a nullity because of a procedural inadequacy. This only became apparent to me moments before the defendant was to be arraigned when I reviewed the information. I showed the information to the Crown and he agreed that the trial judge ought to find that the information was a nullity which he did so.
William H. – January 24th – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. The defendant was operating an all terrain vehicle and ran out of gas. Police arrested him at a location quite distant from where he had left his vehicle. Although the defendant blew almost 3 times the legal limit, because of the lack of proximity between the defendant and his vehicle, the Crown acknowledged that they could not prove these charges and all criminal charges were withdrawn.
Stuart H. – January 24th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. There were constitutional issues that were going to be argued had this matter proceeded to trial. As the breath readings were towards the lower end and the defendant had no criminal record, the Crown agreed to withdraw all criminal charges and instead had the defendant plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving which included a 6 month period of probation where he was legally permitted to drive for limited purposes including work. He also pled guilty to a Failing to Appear charge but received a discharge which avoided a criminal record for the defendant.
Mark W. – January 21st – The defendant was charged with Over 80. We had discussions with the Crown and pointed out numerous weaknesses in the Crown’s case. The Crown ultimately offered a plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. He received a fine and was placed on a probation order for 1 year during which time he can only operate his motor vehicle for work purposes and must maintain a zero blood alcohol concentration when driving. All criminal charges were withdrawn.
Sylvia S. – January 19th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed by the trial judge. The judge found that the Crown had not proven that the breath samples were taken “as soon as practicable” which is a requirement of the Criminal Code.
Robert P. – January 17th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The Crown recognized there were problems in proving this case particularly as it related to issues of the timing of the breath samples. As a result, a resolution was achieved whereby all criminal charges were withdrawn and, instead, the defendant pled guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. He received a fine and no suspension of his driving privileges. This resolution avoided a criminal record for the defendant.
Rad K. – January 11th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. All charges were dismissed by the trial judge. The Over 80 charge was dismissed as the judge made a finding that the defendant’s right to counsel and his right to be free from an unreasonable seizure (specifically, his breath samples) were infringed thereby justifying the exclusion of the evidence of those breath readings. The Impaired Driving count was dismissed as the judge found there was a reasonable doubt raised in the evidence as to whether the defendant was impaired at the time of driving even though evidence was led of his impairment some period of time after the driving had concluded.
Mary V. – January 6th – 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 took too long to be tried and thereby infringed her constitutional right to be tried within a reasonable time.
Raechal – January 4th – The defendant was charged with Refuse to Provide Breath Sample. The matter was set for trial and adjourned at the Crown’s request, 3 times. Application and affidavit material were prepared which outlined that the charge should be stayed due to unreasonable delay. On the day of the delay argument we were able to convince the Crown that they would not be successful in opposing the argument and the Crown withdrew the charge.
