Matthew P. – Dec. 20 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Upon receipt of disclosure (the police report) it became apparent that the breath room video was incomplete because of mechanical malfunction. We persuaded the prosecutor that this lack of evidence created a potential constitutional argument for the defendant. As a result, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a $500 fine and received no other punishment. After the plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act was entered the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.
Allan G. – Dec. 19 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. We brought to the prosecutor’s attention a problem with their case related to the police making an unlawful entry into the defendant’s home prior to arrest. Ultimately, the prosecutor agreed to resolve the matter by allowing the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving with probationary terms that included a period where he would have to operate a motor vehicle with an ignition interlock in his personal car. After the plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act was entered the prosecutor withdrew the Impaired and Over 80 charges.
Expedito D. – Dec. 18 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. The judge accepted my argument that the prosecutor had not proven that the arresting officer had grounds to arrest the defendant and demand that he provide breath samples. As a result of his finding, the judge excluded the evidence of the breath samples even though they were above the legal limit. There was no other evidence that the defendant was above the legal limit so the judge dismissed the Over 80 charge. The judge also accepted my argument that the prosecutor had not led sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant was impaired while driving which caused him to dismiss that charge as well.
Shayne S. – November 14 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The matter proceeded to trial however partway through the trial cracks developed in the prosecutor’s case. Specifically, an issue arose as to whether the defendant’s right to counsel had been properly observed and whether the officers were vested with the necessary grounds to arrest the defendant and demand that he provide breath samples. As a result of these issues, we were able to reach a resolution whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The terms of the resolution required the defendant to not drive for three months and then only for work purposes for one year thereafter. He was also required to pay a fine. Once this resolution was reached, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.
Connor H. – November 14 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The defendant had no criminal record. His readings were only marginally above the legal limit. As a result, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a one year period of probation, the only term being he could not operate a motor vehicle with any alcohol in his system during the one year period. After the plea was entered the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge of Over 80.
Gary S. – November 12- The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. After several days of trial, the prosecutor eventually invited the judge to dismiss both charges. She conceded that the Impaired Driving charge had not been proven based on the evidence she had called. She also conceded that she could not prove the Over 80 charge as no officer read a breath demand to the defendant. As a result of these concessions, the trial judge dismissed both charges.
Mathanaraj M. – October 29 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after trial. Several issues were argued including a right to counsel issue and several technical issues. Ultimately, the judge had a reasonable doubt as to whether the prosecutor had proven their case.
Sarah M. – October 24 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. The judge dismissed the Impaired Driving charge as he was left in reasonable doubt as to whether the prosecutor had proven impairment. He dismissed the Over 80 charge as he had reasonable doubt that the prosecutor had proven the breath tests had not been provided “as soon as practicable”, a legal requirement for the admissibility of the breath samples as proof of the alcohol concentration of the defendant at the time of driving.
Ryan L. – October 22 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The judge dismissed the charger after a trial. I was able to convince the judge that the breath tests had not been provided “as soon as practicable”, a legal requirement for the admissibility of the breath samples as proof of the alcohol concentration of the defendant at the time of driving.
James D. – October 16 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. This was a lengthy trial over several days. Ultimately, I provided the prosecutor and the judge with written submissions. Once the prosecutor was alerted to the issues I highlighted in those submissions, he contacted me and agreed to a resolution. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine. After the plea was entered, the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charges of Impaired Driving and Over 80.
John T. – September 13 – The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a sample into a screening device. At trial, the evidence of the arresting officer revealed that she had not complied with many of the requirements of the new provisions in the Criminal Code relating to the use of roadside screening devices. Prior to the end of the officer’s evidence, I was able to convince the prosecutor that he had no reasonable prospect of conviction. The prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge.
Carl S. – September 3 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. After cross-examination of the arresting officer, it became apparent that the prosecutor would have difficulties establishing the officer’s grounds for arrest. At a recess during the trial, 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 requirement that he drive with an ignition interlock device in his vehicle for one year. After the plea was entered the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge of Over 80.
Lee S. – August 30 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. He was a senior citizen who had no previous involvement in the criminal justice system. His breath readings were towards the lower end and he had many members of the community who were willing to speak well of him. There was also a potential right to counsel issue. As a result of the above, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The defendant paid a fine and was put on a probation order where he was not allowed to have any alcohol in his system while driving for 1 year. After the plea was entered the prosecutor withdrew the Impaired and Over 80 charges.
Ryan B. – August 29 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. We were able to persuade the prosecutor that there was a strong issue as to whether the defendant’s right to counsel of choice had been infringed based on the failure of the police to contact his father (who was to assist in finding contact information for his counsel of choice) notwithstanding the request by the defendant to do so. As a result of this issue, 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 no suspension of his driving privileges. Once the defendant pled guilty to the Highway Traffic Act charge, the prosecutor withdrew the criminal offence Over 80 charge.
Baldeo P. – August 26 – The defendant was charged with Refusing to provide a breath sample into a roadside screening device. The matter proceeded to trial. Partway through the evidence of the arresting officer, the prosecutor recognized that there were difficulties in his evidence and that therefore, there would be difficulties in obtaining a conviction after trial. 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 no suspension of his driving privileges. Once the defendant entered his plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence, the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge of Refusing to provide a breath sample.
William M. – August 15 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both criminal charges were dismissed after trial. The trial judge ruled that the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was impaired at the time of driving. The trial judge also ruled that the prosecution had not proven that at the time of driving the defendant was above the legal limit even though the defendant provided breath samples at the station that were well in excess of the legal limit.
Hani O. – August 14 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both criminal charges were dismissed after a trial. It was determined that there was insufficient evidence that the defendant was impaired at the time of driving to justify a conviction on that charge. The trial judge dismissed the over 80 charge based on his decision that the prosecution had led insufficient evidence to prove new requirements under the Criminal Code necessary to prove an over 80 charge.
Jason B. – August 1 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Before the trial was scheduled to begin, the prosecutor recognized that an additional police witness was needed to prove their case. This created a logistical difficulty for the prosecutor because this officer was needed elsewhere that day. 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 a 6 month licence suspension. Once the defendant pled guilty to the Highway Traffic Act charge, the prosecutor withdrew the criminal offence Over 80 charge.
Zachary B. – July 16 – In an unusual combination of charges, the defendant was charged with Over 80, Sexual Assault and Assault. On the day of trial, the prosecutor recognized technical difficulties with proof of the Over 80 charge. As a result, the prosecutor withdrew the criminal offence Over 80 charge. The sexual assault and assault trial continued. After the end of the complainant’s evidence, the prosecutor agreed to a resolution whereby the sexual assault charge was withdrawn and the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the assault charge for a conditional discharge, which is not considered a criminal record or conviction in Canadian law.
Amit S. – July 10 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The defendant was a young doctor from the United States. A criminal conviction would have devastated his career. After extensive negotiations with the prosecutor 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 suspension of his driving privileges in Ontario. Once the defendant pled guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence, the prosecutor withdrew the criminal offence Over 80 charge, which allowed the defendant to return to the United States without a Canadian criminal record.
William D. – July 9 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. We were able to persuade the prosecution that they had no reasonable prospect of success at a trial. There was credible evidence that the defendant had consumed most of the alcohol on this occasion after he had stopped driving and that at the time of driving he would have been neither impaired nor above the legal limit. The prosecutor accepted that there would be no reasonable prospect of conviction at a trial. The prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges of Impaired and Over 80.
Brittani K. – July 3 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Her readings were towards the lower end and she had no criminal record. She was a young woman who was desperate to avoid a criminal record. After extensive negotiations, a resolution was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine of $1,000 and a requirement that for 11 months she could only operate a motor vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device installed. After the defendant entered her guilty plea to the Highway Traffic Act charge, the prosecutor withdrew the criminal offence Over 80 charge. This result avoided a criminal record for the defendant.
Shayne B. – June 20 – The defendant was charged with Impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and Iver 80 care or control of a motor vehicle as well as two breaches of custody release orders. I was able to persuade the prosecutor that he could not prove the care or control charges as the defendant was not driving the vehicle in question although he was drunk and in the vehicle when found by police. As a result, the defendant pled guilty to the two breaches for which he received two conditional discharges. Discharges are not considered to be either convictions or a criminal record in Canadian law. Once my client entered his guilty pleas to the two breaches, the prosecutor withdrew both care or control charges.
Kevin W. – June 17 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The matter proceeded to trial. After calling one witness, it became apparent to the prosecutor that he would not be able to prove that the defendant was driving the vehicle in question at the time in question. He asked the judge to stay proceedings. A stay is equivalent in law to a withdrawal of the charges.
Ravinder S. – June 12 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The matter had already been adjourned once and there was a reasonable prospect the matter would not be reached on the second dates set for trial. As a result, an offer was made by the prosecutor which we accepted. Specifically, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. Once he entered a guilty plea to that traffic offence, the criminal charge of Over 80 was withdrawn by the prosecutor.
Ian G. – June 6 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving by drug and Possession of marijuana. During the trial, I was able to expose several weaknesses in the prosecutor’s case including a flagrant breach of the defendant’s right to counsel. As a result of concerns about the viability of their case, a resolution was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. Once a guilty plea was entered to this traffic offence, both criminal charges were withdrawn by the prosecutor.
Andrew H. – June 6 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Prior to trial, I served a notice of constitutional argument on the prosecutor alleging that a statement made by the defendant at the roadside was inadmissible at trial and without that statement, the police had no grounds to arrest him. Because of concerns the prosecutor had about the viability of their case based on this argument, an offer was made which we accepted. Specifically, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic cat offence of Careless Driving. Once he entered a guilty plea to this traffic offence, both criminal charges were withdrawn by the prosecutor.
Bobby K. – June 5 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Refusing to take a breathalyzer test. Both charges were dismissed. Prior to trial, I served a notice of constitutional argument on the prosecutor arguing that my client’s right to counsel was infringed in circumstances where are the police failed to give the defendant an opportunity to look up a private lawyer when his lawyer of choice could not be contacted. During the trial, the prosecutor conceded they could not prove the refuse charge because of this argument and invited the judge to dismiss the charge which he did. Once all the evidence was in, I argued that there was insufficient proof that the defendant was impaired by alcohol at the time of driving. The judge agreed and dismissed the impaired driving charge.
Eric W. – May 29 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Prior to trial, I served a notice of constitutional argument on the prosecutor. Because of concerns the prosecutor had with the viability of their case based on these arguments, we were offered a resolution that we accepted. Specifically, 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. Once the guilty plea was entered by the defendant to this traffic offence, both criminal charges were withdrawn by the prosecutor.
Michael V. – May 15 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. The trial judge accepted my argument that the defendant’s right to counsel had been infringed on this occasion and that the violation was serious enough to justify an exclusion of the breath readings. The trial judge also accepted my contention that the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was impaired by alcohol at the time of driving.
Shayne B. – May14 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Care or Control of a motor vehicle and Over 80 Care or Control of a motor vehicle. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. The trial judge accepted my argument that although the defendant was impaired by alcohol and over the legal limit while seated in his vehicle, the defendant had no intention of operating his motor vehicle on this occasion nor did he pose a realistic risk that he might change his mind and drive.
Tyler O. – May 13 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after trial. The trial judge agreed with my argument that the defendant had been unlawfully kept in custody after the completion of the investigation. As a result of this finding, the trial judge ruled that the breath readings should be excluded from evidence.
Mohamed D. – May 8 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Care or Control of a motor vehicle and Over 80 Care or Control of a motor vehicle. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. The trial judge accepted my argument that although the defendant was impaired by alcohol and over the legal limit while seated in his vehicle, the defendant had no intention of operating his motor vehicle on this occasion nor did he pose a realistic risk that he might change his mind and drive.
An H. – May 2 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. The judge agreed with my argument that the arresting officer lacked sufficient grounds to justify the arrest of the defendant and that this should result in an exclusion from evidence of the breath readings. The judge also agreed with my argument that the symptoms of impairment testified to by police were not sufficient to justify a finding of guilt on the Impaired Driving charge.
Zackary C. – May 1 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Due to difficulties the prosecution had regarding the availability of necessary witnesses, 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 no suspension of his driving privileges. Once the plea to Careless Driving was entered by the defendant, the prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.
William M. – April 15 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Prior to trial, I advanced a motion arguing that the defendant’s right to counsel was infringed in circumstances where a specific request by him to contact counsel of choice was ignored by police. The prosecutor was concerned enough about the argument that he agreed to a resolution of the matter. 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. This was a particularly good resolution for this defendant as he had a previous conviction for drinking and driving and would have faced a jail sentence and a lengthy driving suspension had he been convicted of Over 80 on this occasion. Once the guilty plea to Careless Driving was entered by the defendant, the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge.
Manuel F. – April 12 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after a trial. The trial judge agreed with my argument that the prosecutor had led insufficient evidence that the breath testing instrument that measured the blood alcohol concentration of the defendant was in proper working order.
Jeffery S. – April 11 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. After pointing out difficulties the prosecutor would have in proving the charges due to alleged violations of the defendant’s Charter rights, the defendant was offered a resolution whereby he would plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and 12 months’ probation. After the defendant pled guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence, the prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.
Mallory V. – April 8 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after a trial. The trial judge agreed with my argument that the prosecutor had led insufficient evidence that the breath testing instrument that measured the blood alcohol concentration of the defendant was in proper working order.
Wayne M. – April 8 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after a trial. The trial judge agreed with my argument that the prosecutor had led insufficient evidence that the breath testing instrument that measured the blood alcohol concentration of the defendant was in proper working order.
Milan B. – April 3 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Refusing to Provide a breath sample. It was apparent part way through the trial that I had several issues I could potentially argue for both charges that were before the court. For example, there was a language barrier that would have been relevant to the refuse charge and the officers who testified at trial did not present as particularly credible witnesses on the impaired driving charge. During the recess in the proceedings, I had discussions with the prosecutor and we were able to reach a resolution. Specifically, 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. Once the defendant entered his guilty plea to this charge, both criminal charges were dismissed.
Paul S. – March 29 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. After presenting the defendant’s personal circumstances to the prosecutor and pointing out the low value of the readings, a resolution was agreed to whereby he would plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and 12 months’ probation. After the defendant pled guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence, the prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.
Justin M. – March 28 -The defendant was charged with Over 80. After pointing out difficulties the prosecutor would have in proving the charge, the defendant was offered a resolution whereby he would plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and 12 months’ probation. After the defendant pled guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.
Adam H. – March 6 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. One of the investigating officers was not available on the trial date because of illness. Rather than the prosecutor requesting an adjournment of the case, a settlement 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. This resolution not only allowed the defendant to keep driving but it avoided a criminal record for him. Once the defendant entered his guilty plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.
Tammy M – Feb. 28 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Due to difficulties the prosecutor saw in proving the charge, the defendant was offered a resolution whereby she would plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless driving for a fine and 12 months’ probation. After the defendant pled guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.
Tessa S. – Jan. 28 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. The trial judge accepted my argument that the prosecutor had not proven that the defendant was impaired at the time of driving. The trial judge also accepted my argument that the manner in which evidence of the breath readings were presented at trial was not lawful and that, therefore there was no admissible evidence of breath readings before the court.
Irwin N. – Jan. 15 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. A crucial police witness was not available to testify on the trial date and would likely not have been available to testify in the foreseeable future. As a result, the prosecutor withdrew both charges.
Sean H. – Jan. 11 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. On the date of trial, the prosecutor sought an adjournment as one of his witnesses had taken ill. I opposed the request for adjournment on the basis that the defence had been given no prior notice that the Crown would be seeking an adjournment even though the officer became ill well before the trial date. The judge agreed with my argument and denied the adjournment request of the prosecutor. As a result, the prosecutor withdrew both charges.
Tim K. – Jan. 7 The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both chargers were dismissed after a trial. The trial judge accepted my argument that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant was impaired at the time of driving. The trial judge also accepted my argument that the prosecution had not proven that the defendant was served prior to trial with the certificate of analysis, the document that contains the breath readings and the document that the prosecutor was relying upon to prove the over 80 charge. Proof of service of this document prior to trial is a requirement of the Criminal Code.
William J. – Jan. 7 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. The trial judge accepted my argument that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant was impaired at the time of driving. The trial judge also accepted my argument that the prosecution had not proven that the breath tests were taken “as soon as practicable”, a requirement of the Criminal Code.
