Rolando A. – Dec. 14 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The defendant had relatively low readings although they were above the legal limit. After negotiations with the prosecutor, it was agreed that the defendant could plead guilty to the lesser, non-criminal charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. He was required to pay and fine and had certain restrictions placed on his driving privileges for a period of several months but he was able to maintain his driving privileges for work purposes. The Over 80 was withdrawn.
Devin V. – Dec. 8 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. This case involved a single motor vehicle accident. I was able to persuade the prosecutor that he may have difficulty proving the time of the accident and the identity of the defendant as the driver. As a result, a resolution was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. He received a fine and no suspension of his driving privileges. This resolution also avoided a criminal record for the defendant. The criminal charges were withdrawn.
Melissa S. – Dec. 2 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. This case involved a serious single motor vehicle accident where blood samples had to be taken from the defendant because of her injuries. The prosecutor was concerned that there were no witnesses who could establish the time of driving. As a result, the prosecutor agreed to a resolution whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. She received a fine and for several months she had a restriction on her driving privileges whereby she was only allowed to drive for work purposes. This resolution avoided a criminal record for the defendant. The criminal charges were withdrawn.
Amanda S. – Dec. 2 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Care or Control of a motor vehicle and Over 80 Care or Control of a motor vehicle. The defendant was found in the driver’s seat of a motor vehicle while impaired. She testified she had no intention of driving and her evidence was accepted by the judge. Both charges were dismissed.
Andrew F. – November 23 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. I was able to persuade the judge that the matter had taken too long to get to trial. The judge stayed the charges which is equivalent to a dismissal.
Rakesh P. – November 20 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The matter could not proceed on the trial date as one of the witnesses for the prosecution was not available because of illness. The next available date for trial was far enough into the future that the prosecutor had concerns about a delay argument being made in the future. A criminal defendant is always entitled to be tried within a reasonable time. As a result, a resolution was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. He received a fine and a further suspension of his driving privileges. After he entered his guilty plea to this charge, the criminal charge was withdrawn.
Matt S. – November 18 – The defendant wash charged with Over 80. Part way through the trial, I was able to persuade the prosecutor that he would not be able to prove the charge because of a delay at the roadside before a screening test was administered. These types of delays at the roadside often create arguable issues related to rights to counsel and search and seizure. The prosecutor agreed with my assessment of his case. The charge was withdrawn.
Neil A. – November 13 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Prior to trial, I was able to persuade the prosecutor that he would have difficulties proving that the defendant was the driver as there were no witnesses to a motor vehicle accident involving the defendant. The prosecutor agreed to a resolution whereby the Over 80 charge was withdrawn and the defendant pled guilty it to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. He received a fine, no licence suspension and, most important, no criminal record.
Jennifer H. – November 5 – The defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving, a criminal offence and several Highway Traffic Act offences. Initially, the prosecution was seeking a jail sentence. After intense negotiations, not only were we able to avoid a jail sentence for the defendant but we were able to have her criminal charge withdrawn and she was allowed to plead guilty to a single count Highway Traffic Act offence.
Derek C. – Oct. 30 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample. Prior to trial, I had served upon the prosecution a motion to try to exclude evidence the prosecutor needed to prove both charges. The prosecutor had concerns that this motion would succeed at trial. As a result, an offer was made that was accepted by the defendant. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. He received a fine and a probationary term that limited his driving such that he could only drive for work purposes for 9 months. The prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.
John M. – Oct. 28 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The judge dismissed the charge after a trial. The judge accepted my argument that the prosecutor had failed to prove that the police had issued a lawful demand to the defendant to provide breath samples for analysis. The defendant had previous convictions for the same offence and would have faced a four-month jail sentence had he been convicted.
Gina B. – Oct. 26 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Partway through the trial, it became apparent that the prosecution was going to have a problem proving the time of the alleged offence, always an important feature of an over 80 case. An offer was made by the prosecutor which was accepted by the defendant whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and no suspension of her driving privileges. Thereafter, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.
Wali M. – Oct. 22 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving by Drug. It was alleged that the defendant was impaired by marijuana while driving. While the prosecution called several witnesses at trial including a scientist, at the end of the trial, the Judge ruled that there was reasonable doubt raised. The judge dismissed the charge.
Karamvir G. – Oct. 22 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The matter was set for a 2 day trial. A key witness was mistakenly subpoenaed for the second day of the trial but not the first and he was not available to attend on the first. The prosecutor (very fairly) took the view that if he did not have a necessary witness on the first day of the trial, he was not going to seek an adjournment. The prosecutor withdrew both charges.
Patrick T. – Oct. 19 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The arresting officer admitted during my cross-examination that he lacked the grounds to have made a breath demand for a screening device to the defendant. After the evidence was completed but before legal argument began, the prosecutor invited the judge to dismiss the charge. The judge dismissed the charge.
Khemraj R. – October 2 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Over 80 and Dangerous Driving. I was able to convince the trial judge that the prosecutor had not proven that my client was the driver of the motor vehicle at the time in question. As a result, the trial judge dismissed all three charges.
Elijah L. – September 25 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. After all the evidence was in, the judge thought the issues were complicated enough that he asked the prosecutor and me to prepare written submissions. The primary issue was surrounding whether or not the breath demand made by the arresting officer was lawful. I was able to persuade the trial judge in my written submissions not only that the demand was unlawful but that the unlawfulness of the demand justified the exclusion of the breath readings from evidence. As there was no other evidence implicating my client, the trial judge dismissed the charge.
Peter R. – September 25 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. At trial, I argued that his right to speak to his counsel of choice was breached by the arresting officer and the breathalyzer technician. The trial judge ultimately agreed with my argument and dismissed both charges.
Christopher G. – September 22 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The matter took an extended period of time to get on for trial due in part because of illness to one of the police officers involved in the investigation. I raised an argument that the defendant’s constitutional right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed and that this justified a stay of proceedings. During this hearing, it came to light that the illness to the officer would extend beyond the next date scheduled for trial should the delay argument fail. As a result, instead of concluding the delay argument hearing, I reached a resolution with the prosecutor whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The defendant was required to pay a fine and for a few months his driving privileges were limited but in a fashion that would not interfere with his work. Both criminal charges were withdrawn.
Stanislaw L. – September 16 – The Defendant was charged with Over 80. Part way through the trial, I was able to convince the prosecutor that there were several weaknesses in the evidence of the arresting officer. He agreed that he would withdraw the charge if the defendant took alcohol counselling. The matter was adjourned for a period of time. Upon the defendant returning to court and providing proof of counselling, the Over 80 charge was withdrawn.
Allen T. – September 10 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Part way through the trial, it became apparent that the evidence of the arresting officer had numerous weaknesses and seemed to indicate a lack of recollection on key points. A recess was asked for by the prosecutor at which time a resolution was reached. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and no suspension of his driving privileges. Both criminal charges were withdrawn.
Keith B. – Sept. 4 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Over 80 and Possession of Cocaine. The Impaired Driving and Over 80 charges were dismissed by the judge. The judge accepted my argument that the prosecutor had failed to prove that, at the time of a motor vehicle accident in which the defendant was driving, the defendant was either impaired or above the legal limit even though the breath readings taken at the police station after the accident were above the legal limit. The defendant was found guilty of the drug offence but was given a conditional discharge by the judge thus avoiding a criminal record for him.
Matthew D. – Sept. 3 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The trial judge dismissed both charges. The trial judge agreed with my argument that the police officer who arrested the defendant lacked reasonable and probable grounds to justify the arrest and the taking of breath samples.
Robert C. – Sept. 3 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. On the trial date there was a mix-up and the officers did not attend court. While it may have been possible to get one of them to attend at some point that day, the other officer was ill and would not have been able to attend that day in any event. While the prosecutor probably could have obtained an adjournment of the case due to the illness of the one officer, he was mindful of the mix up and that that may have prevented the sick officer from attending that day even had he not been sick. Thus, the prosecutor, very fairly, allowed the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a 3 month period of probation that limited the defendant’s driving privileges to work related driving. This allowed the defendant to avoid a criminal record and maintain his employment. The Over 80 charge was withdrawn.
Kurtis S. – Aug. 26 – The defendant was charged with Refusing to Provide a proper sample into a roadside device. This was a re-trial of a case I had previously won. The prosecutor appealed that decision and succeeded in having the matter sent back for a new trial. The officer inexplicably allowed the defendant to speak to a lawyer before the test was administered thus delaying the test by several minutes. The judge accepted my argument that this rendered the breath demand unlawful as there was a requirement that the test be administered immediately. The charge was dismissed yet again.
Ahsan K. – Aug. 19 – The defendant was charged with the criminal offence of Dangerous Driving. After extensive negotiations, the prosecutor agreed to withdraw the charge and allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Stunt Driving for a fine and no suspension of his driving privileges. This resolution also allowed the defendant to avoid a criminal record.
George M. – Aug. 12 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The prosecutor agreed with my argument that the matter had taken too long to get to trial. The prosecutor invited the judge to stay the charge which is equivalent to a dismissal. The judge stayed the charge.
Marco P. – August 11 – The defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving. We were able to persuade the prosecutor that there was insufficient evidence to prove the case. The officer who laid the charge only came to the scene after the driving had ended and I was able to convince the Crown that the evidence he was relying upon was both circumstantial and vague. The defendant made a contribution to a charity of his choice whereupon the prosecutor withdrew the charge.
Diane N. – August 6 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. At the end of the trial, the trial judge dismissed the charge. The judge accepted my argument that the officer lacked the grounds to make the roadside screening device demand. As the arrest of the defendant was based solely on the failure of the screening device test, the judge accepted my argument that the breath sample evidence taken back at the station ought to be excluded from evidence.
Donald S. – July 9 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Prior to trial I served a constitutional argument on the prosecution giving them notice that I would be arguing that the police lacked grounds to arrest the defendant and demand breath samples from him. On the trial date, because of concerns the prosecutor had about his ability to plead the case, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. As a result, the defendant avoided a criminal conviction and maintained his driving privileges. The Over 80 charge was withdrawn.
Jovan B. – July 8 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The judge dismissed the charge at the end of the prosecutor’s case. The judge accepted my argument that the prosecutor had not proven that the offence had occurred within 2 hours of the time of the first breath sample, a necessary precondition to proving the charge.
Sarah M. – July 7 – The defendant was charged with refusing to blow into a screening device. Partway through the trial, an issue arose regarding the officer’s grounds for making the roadside breathalyzer demand. Avoiding a criminal conviction was crucial for the defendant as she would have lost her employment had she been convicted. Fortunately, because of the difficulties that arose in the prosecutor’s case, the prosecutor agreed to a resolution whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a 6 month suspension of her driving privileges. The criminal charge was withdrawn. The suspension was not a concern for the defendant as she worked overseas. However, the avoidance of the criminal record allowed her to keep her job.
Domenic C. – June 29 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Prior to trial, I served a motion on the prosecution arguing that the police lacked proper grounds to arrest the defendant and demand breath samples from him. Upon considering the weaknesses of their case, the prosecution withdrew both charges.
Jeff J. – June 26 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. On the day of trial, the arresting officer was nowhere to be found. Although the prosecutor asked the judge soon after court began to allow her more time to find the whereabouts of the officer, the judge refused her request. The defendant was arraigned and the judge asked the prosecutor if she had any other evidence to tender to the court. When the prosecutor responded in the negative, the trial judge dismissed the Impaired Driving and Over 80 charges.
Michael M. – June 25 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. After I cross-examined the arresting officer, the prosecutor asked for a recess. During the recess the prosecutor had discussions with the police and then advised me that based on the evidence I brought out on cross-examination, she no longer felt she had a reasonable prospect of conviction. After the recess, the prosecutor invited the judge to dismiss the charge. The judge dismissed the Over 80 charge.
Melissa R. – June 18 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. I had served a constitutional argument on the prosecutor prior to trial giving notice that I would be arguing that the arresting officer lacked the grounds to arrest the defendant. On the day of trial, the prosecutor advised me that, after discussing the issues with the arresting officer, he agreed that my argument would succeed and that he had no reasonable prospect of conviction. The prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.
Justin C. – June 15 – The defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving. On the day of trial, it appeared that the matter would not be reached for trial because of other trial matters that were on the list. The prosecutor was concerned that if the matter had to be adjourned, an issue might arise about the matter taking too long to get to trial. (someone charged with a criminal offence has a constitutional right to be tried within a reasonable time) 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 and a 3 month suspension of his driving privileges. The Dangerous Driving charge was withdrawn by the prosecutor.
Brandon T. – June 9 – The defendant was charged with Flight from Police under the Criminal Code. The defendant was youthful and was anxious to avoid a criminal record. Prior to trial, after negotiations with the prosecutor, an agreement was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Stunt Driving. He received a large fine and a 90 day suspension of his driving privileges. The Flight from Police charge was withdrawn by the prosecutor. This resolution avoided a criminal record for the defendant.
Stefanie G. – June 4 – The defendant was charged with Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample. The charge was dismissed by the trial judge after the hearing of evidence. The judge accepted my argument that the inability of the defendant to provide a breath sample was not intentional and that, therefore, she did not have the guilty mind required for a conviction.
Maya K. – June 2 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The defendant was young and desperately wanted to avoid a criminal record but the facts of the case would have made victory at trial extremely unlikely. In an innovative resolution, the prosecutor allowed the defendant to plead guilty to the criminal charge of dangerous driving but agreed to ask the judge to impose a sentence of a conditional discharge. In Canadian law, this is neither considered a conviction nor a criminal record. Thereafter, the prosecutor withdrew the Impaired and Over 80 charges.
Melanie A. – June 1 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after a trial. During the trial, several technical issues arose all of which created difficulties for the prosecutor to prove their case. During a recess, I advised the prosecutor of these issues and he agreed that he had no reasonable prospect of conviction. He invited the judge to dismiss the charge at which time the judge dismissed the charge.
Terry P. – June 1 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The defendant had reasonably low readings and had no previous criminal record. I was able to persuade the prosecutor to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a period of probation which included a limitation on his driving privileges. The Over 80 charge was withdrawn. This resolution allowed the defendant to avoid a criminal record and to continue driving for work purposes.
Ryan F. – May 14 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Partway through the trial, I was able to keep a statement from the defendant out of evidence that caused the prosecutor to have concerns about whether the case could be proven. As a result, an agreement was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and no suspension of his driving privileges. The Impaired and Over 80 charges were withdrawn.
Parmand S. – May 7 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The defendant had reasonably low readings and had no previous criminal record. I was able to persuade the prosecutor to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a period of probation which included a limitation on his driving privileges. The Over 80 charge was withdrawn. This resolution allowed the defendant to avoid a criminal record and to continue driving for work purposes.
Andrew T. – April 22 – The defendant was charged with Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample into a breathalyzer. During the trial, technical issues arose that cause the Crown to have concerns as to whether the case could be proven. 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 a 90 day suspension of his driving privileges. The Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample charge was withdrawn.
Erik V. – April 14 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The defendant had reasonably low readings and had no previous criminal record. I was able to persuade the prosecutor to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a period of probation which included a limitation on his driving privileges. The Over 80 charge was withdrawn. This resolution allowed the defendant to avoid a criminal record and to continue driving for work purposes.
Clayton R. – April 9 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Over 80, Possession of Marijuana and Operate Motor Vehicle with Open Liquor. The defendant’s readings were barely above the legal limit and the symptoms of impairment were minimal. After negotiations with the Prosecutor we were able to reach an agreement whereby all four charges were withdrawn. Instead, the defendant plead guilty to a Highway Traffic Act charge of Careless Driving for a fine and a brief 30 day suspension.
Jeffrey F. – April 2 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed by the trial judge after a trial. I argued that the Crown neglected to lead any evidence of a breathalyzer demand upon the arrest of the defendant. The judge agreed and ruled that this was fatal to the charge.
Dene C. – March 26 – The defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving. Had the matter gone to trial, identification of the driver would have been a key issue. Rather than risking a trial, the Crown agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offences of Stunt Driving and Fail to Report for a fine and a 90 day suspension of his driver’s licence. The criminal charge was withdrawn. This resolution avoided a criminal record for the defendant who is a young male.
William J. – March 12 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Partway through the trial, cracks started to develop in the Crown’s case related to issues such as the time of offence and identity of the offender. I was able to persuade the Crown to resolve the matter by allowing the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and no suspension of his driving privileges. The criminal charges were dismissed. This was a remarkable outcome for the defendant as he had a previous conviction for drinking and driving and, if found guilty on this occasion, would have been subjected to a period of jail and a minimum driving prohibition of 3 years.
Ronald D. – March 11 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after trial by the trial judge. I convinced the trial judge that the certificate which contained the breath readings was fatally flawed. The judge agreed. This was a significant result for the defendant who had a previous conviction for the same offence and thus would have received a jail sentence and a lengthy driving prohibition had he been convicted on this occasion.
Mark M. – March 3 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The readings were towards the lower end and he had no criminal record. The Crown agreed to a resolution whereby the defendant plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. A term of this plea was that the defendant had to drive with an ignition interlock device in his car for a period of time. The criminal charge was withdrawn.
Steveson M. – March 3 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The readings were towards the lower end and he had no criminal record. The Crown agreed to a resolution whereby the defendant plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. A term of this plea was that the defendant had to drive with an ignition interlock device in his car for a period of time. The criminal charge was withdrawn.
S.G. (Doesn’t want first name printed) – Feb. 11 -The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Just prior to the commencement of the trial, the prosecutor determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction as there was no reliable evidence that the defendant was the driver of motor vehicle at the time in question. The criminal charges were withdrawn.
Peter N.- Jan. 29 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The judge dismissed the charge. The judge ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove many of the technical requirements of an Over 80 charge including the time of driving and the identification of the defendant as the driver.
Nigel D.- Jan. 26 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The readings were only slightly above the legal limit and the defendant had had no previous dealings with the law. As a result, the prosecutor allowed to defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a term that he operate a motor vehicle with an ignition interlock device in his car for 11 months. This was an acceptable resolution to the defendant as it allowed him to avoid a criminal record and continue driving. The criminal charge was withdrawn.
Donald W.- Jan. 21 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The readings were only barely above the legal limit. Although he had a previous conviction for the same offence, the previous conviction was quite dated. The prosecutor originally rejected my attempt to have the matter resolved by way of a plea to a Highway Traffic Act offence. However, on the trial date, another matter, which was a continuing trial, a priority and looked like it might consume the entire trial day. As a result, the prosecutor was concerned about potential delay issues related to my matter. As a result, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and no suspension of his driving privileges. The criminal charge was withdrawn.
Nicholas D.- Jan. 21 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. I served a constitutional argument on the prosecutor advising that I would contend the defendant was unlawfully kept in custody after the completion of the investigation and that this infringement of his charter rights justified a stay of proceedings, which is the equivalent of a dismissal of the charges. Rather than argue the matter at a trial, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a 90 day suspension of his drivers licence. The criminal charges were withdrawn.
Andrew H. – Jan. 19 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Because of concerns the prosecutor whether the identity of the defendant as the driver could be proven at trial, an offer was made that was accepted by the defendant whereby he was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a brief period of restricted driving that still allowed him to drive for work purposes. The criminal charge was withdrawn.
Stephanie W.- Jan. 16 – The defendant was charged with Operation of a Motor Vehicle while Impaired by a drug. The prosecutor concluded he would not be able to establish that the officer who formed the opinion that the defendant was impaired by a drug was properly qualified to render such an opinion. As a result, the charge was withdrawn.
Wochao L. – Jan. 14 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. I argued during the trial that the defendant’s right to counsel was infringed because of the failure of the police to have his rights translated into his mother tongue. Because of concerns the prosecutor had about the strength of this argument, an offer was made during the trial to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and no suspension of the defendant’s driving privileges. The defendant agreed to this resolution as this avoided a criminal record for him and he was able to continue driving. The criminal charges were withdrawn.
