Dec. 21 – Oliku K. – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Refusing to Provide Breath Samples. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. I was able to persuade the judge that the defendant’s right to counsel was infringed by the police on this occasion. I was also able to persuade the judge that the infringement was serious enough to justify an exclusion of any evidence of a refusal to provide breath samples, and much of the evidence regarding impairment. As a result, the judge ruled that the remaining evidence was insufficient to find the defendant guilty of either charge before the court.
Dec. 6 – Melissa H. – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving by Drugs and Failing to Remain After Accident. After negotiations with the Crown, which included pointing out several frailties in the case for the Crown, a resolution was reached. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of Careless Driving. Upon entering this plea, the Crown withdrew the Impaired Driving and Failing to Remain After Accident charges against the defendant.
Nov. 11 – Eduardo A. – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Driving Over the Legal Limit of Alcohol. We were able to convince the judge that the matter had taken too long to get to trial. As a result, the judge stayed the charges which is the legal equivalent to dismissing the charges.
Nov. 10 – Devon A. – The defendant was charged with Operate a Vehicle Above the Legal Limit for alcohol and the traffic offences of stunt driving, driving more than 50 km above the speed limit, fail to stop for police and breach of probation. Because of scheduling difficulties related to the Covid shutdown, the Crown had concerns about their ability to observe the defendant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time. As a result, a resolution was reached. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to two non-criminal traffic offences, Careless Driving and Fail to Stop for Police. He received fines and a requirement to drive with an ignition interlock in his car for a period of time. Upon entering guilty pleas to these two charges, the remaining charges, including the criminal charge, were withdrawn.
October 26 – Ndubueze O. – The defendant was charged with Refusal to Provide a Breath Sample into a Roadside Breathalyzer. Prior to a trial, the Crown determined that it did not have a reasonable prospect of conviction. As a result, the charge was withdrawn.
Sept. 21 – Robert J. – The defendant was charged with Driving Over the legal limit of alcohol. The charge was dismissed after a trial. I was able to convince the judge that a breach of the defendant’s rights to counsel was serious enough to justify the exclusion of the breath results. The judge also accepted my alternative argument that even if the breath readings admissible in evidence, the Crown had not proven that the police officer who took the samples operated the breathalyzer in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Criminal Code.
Sept. 15 – Peter P. – The defendant was charged with Driving Over the legal limit of alcohol. The defendant had no criminal record, his breath readings were towards the lower end and he did alcohol counselling soon after he was charged. As a result of all of this, a resolution was reached in this matter. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of careless driving. He received a fine and a requirement that he drive with an ignition interlock device in his car for a period of time. Once the defendant entered his plea to Careless Driving, the criminal charge was withdrawn.
Sept. 13 – Antonino D. – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Driving Over the legal limit and Failing to Stop after an accident. After lengthy negotiations with the Crown, which included pointing out several frailties in the case for the Crown, a resolution was reached. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of Careless Driving for a fine and no suspension of his driver’s licence. Upon entering this plea, the Crown withdrew all criminal charges against the defendant.
Sept. 12 – Ali S. – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Driving Over the legal limit of alcohol. Due to the potential for problems the Crown might have had securing the attendance of a crucial civilian witness for trial, a resolution was reached. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a brief suspension of his driver’s licence. Upon entering this plea, the Crown withdrew both criminal charges against the defendant.
Aug. 28 – Noah S. – The defendant was an American and was Driving Over the legal limit for alcohol while he was visiting Ontario. The defendant’s breath readings were toward the lower end and he had had no previous criminal history here or in the United States. As a result, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic charge of Careless Driving. The defendant had to pay a fine and was not allowed to drive in Ontario for 1 year. Once the defendant pled to Careless Driving the criminal charges were withdrawn.
Aug. 4 – Earl V. – The defendant was charged with Driving Over the legal limit for alcohol. The defendant’s breath readings were toward the lower end and he had had no previous criminal history. As a result, a resolution was reached. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic charge of Careless Driving. The defendant had to pay a fine and drive with an ignition interlock device in their vehicle for a period of time. Once the defendant pled to Careless Driving the criminal charge was withdrawn.
July 20 – Raymond D. – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Driving Over the legal limit for alcohol. The Crown had concerns about the backlog caused by Covid and needed to resolve matters that they might not normally resolve. This was one such matter. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic charge of
Careless Driving. The defendant had to pay a fine and drive with an ignition interlock device in his vehicle for a period of time. Once the defendant pled to Careless Driving the criminal charges were withdrawn.
July 20 – Joshua K. – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving by Drugs. The Crown had concerns about the backlog caused by Covid and needed to resolve matters that they might not normally resolve. This was one such matter. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic charge of Careless Driving. The defendant had to pay a fine and received a brief driver’s licence suspension of 90 days. Once the defendant pled to Careless Driving the criminal charge was withdrawn.
July 20 – Jason P. – The defendant was charged with Driving Over the legal limit for alcohol. The Crown had concerns about the backlog caused by Covid and needed to resolve matters that they might not normally resolve. This was one such matter. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic charge of Careless Driving. The defendant had to pay a fine and drive with an ignition interlock device in his vehicle for a period of time. Once the defendant pled to Careless Driving the criminal charge was withdrawn.
July 7 – Ryan A. – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Dangerous Driving and Driving Over the legal limit for alcohol. The Crown had concerns about the backlog caused by Covid and needed to resolve matters that they might not normally resolve. This was one such matter. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic charge of Careless Driving. The defendant had to pay a fine and drive with an ignition interlock device in his vehicle for a period of time. Once the defendant pled to Careless Driving the criminal charges were withdrawn.
July 6 – Stephen B. – The defendant was charged with Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample into a roadside screening device. We were able to convince the judge that the matter had taken to long to get to trial. The trial judge stayed the charge which is the legal equivalent of dismissing the charge.
June 26 – Jose R. – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Driving Over the legal limit for alcohol. The Crown had concerns about several issues we brought to their attention including a right to counsel issue and an issue related to the mistreatment of the defendant after arrest. As a result of these concerns, a resolution was reached. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic charge of Careless Driving. The defendant had to pay a fine and drive with an ignition interlock device in his vehicle for a period of time. Once the defendant pled to Careless Driving the criminal charges were withdrawn
June 21 – Olakorede O. – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Driving Over the legal limit of alcohol. Partway through the trial and after extensive cross-examination of the arresting officer, it became apparent that the defendant’s right to contact a counsel of his choosing may have been breached by the police. As it was also apparent that there were weaknesses in the impaired driving charge, I was able to negotiate a resolution with the Crown. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic charge of Careless Driving for a fine and some limitations on his driving privileges for some months. Once this plea was entered by the defendant, both criminal charges were withdrawn by the Crown. This resolution was a welcomed one by the defendant who was not a Canadian citizen and ran the risk of deportation had he been convicted of either of the criminal charges he was facing.
June 13 – Bridget P. – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Driving Over the legal limit of alcohol. The matter could not be reached on the trial date and had to be adjourned. The Crown had concerns that the new trial date could infringe the defendant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time. As a result, a resolution was reached. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine and a requirement that the defendant drive with an ignition interlock for 12 months. Upon the defendant pleading guilty to Careless Driving, both criminal charges were withdrawn.
June 2- Darren L. – The defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving. The charge was dismissed after a trial. The allegation was that the defendant was the enraged party in a road rage incident. After I cross-examined the other driver, I was able to convince the judge that it was the other driver, not the defendant, who was enraged. The judge was left with a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was driving dangerously.
May 17 – Jordan J. – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Refusing to Provide Breath Samples. The refuse breath sample charge was dismissed after a trial. The Crown chose not to proceed on the impaired driving charge, no doubt believing it could not be proven. The judge ruled that we had established several breaches of the defendant’s rights prior to arrest. The judge also ruled that the breaches were serious enough to justify dismissing the refuse breath samples charge.
May 16 – Adam P. – The defendant was charged with Driving Over the legal limit of alcohol. The charge was dismissed after a trial. I was able to convince the judge that the arresting officer lacked grounds to arrest the defendant and demand that he provide breath samples. I was further able to convince the judge that this lack of grounds to arrest was a serious enough breach of the defendant’s rights to justify an exclusion of the breath test results.
April 25 – Ryan D. – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving by Drug. The charge was dismissed after a trial. We were able to convince the judge that the Crown had not proven impairment by drug beyond a reasonable doubt which is the standard that is required in any criminal case for a judge to convict.
April 21 – Elvis N. – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Driving Over the legal limit for alcohol. The Crown had concerns about the backlog caused by Covid and needed to resolve matters that they might not normally resolve. This was one such matter. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic charge of Careless Driving. The defendant had to pay a fine and drive with an ignition interlock device in his vehicle for a period of time. Once the defendant pled to Careless Driving the criminal charges were withdrawn.
April 3 – Kiana M. – The defendant was charged with Driving Over the legal limit for alcohol. The defendant was a young person with no previous criminal history. As well, the breath readings were towards the low end. As a result of the above, the defendant was offered a resolution whereby she was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal, traffic offence of Careless Driving. She received a fine, and some limitations on her driving privileges for 30 days, and was required to drive with an ignition interlock device in her vehicle for 12 months. Once she entered her guilty plea to Careless Driving, the criminal charge was withdrawn.
Marc 27 – Jonathan S. – The defendant was charged with Driving Over the legal limit for alcohol. Because of concerns the Crown had regarding its ability to prove their case at a trial, a resolution was reached. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic charge of Careless Driving. The defendant had to pay a fine and he received a six-month licence suspension. This resolution avoided a criminal record for the defendant which was his main concern. Once the defendant pled to Careless Driving the criminal charge was withdrawn.
March 13 – Tyler M. – The defendant was charged with Driving Over the legal limit for alcohol. The Crown had concerns about the backlog caused by Covid and needed to resolve matters that they might not normally resolve. This was one such matter. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic charge of Careless Driving. The defendant had to pay a fine, drive with an ignition interlock device in his vehicle for a period of time and take alcohol counselling. Once the defendant pled to Careless Driving the criminal charge was withdrawn.
March 1- Terence R. – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Driving Over the legal limit for alcohol. The defendant’s breath readings were toward the lower end. As well, the Crown had concerns about a constitutional argument we were intending to bring alleging the defendant’s right to choose the lawyer he wanted advice from that night had been infringed. As a result, a resolution was reached. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic charge of Careless Driving. The defendant had to pay a fine and drive with an ignition interlock device in their vehicle for a period of time. Once the defendant pled to Careless Driving the criminal charges were withdrawn.
March 10 Manny B. – The defendant was charged with Driving Over the legal limit for alcohol. The Crown had concerns about the backlog caused by Covid and needed to resolve matters that they might not normally resolve. This was one such matter. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic charge of Careless Driving. The defendant had to pay a fine and drive with an ignition interlock device in their vehicle for a period of time. Once the defendant pled guilty to Careless Driving the criminal charge was withdrawn.
March 10 – Gladys Z. – The defendant was charged with Driving Over the legal limit for alcohol. The Crown had concerns about several potential weaknesses to their case that we brought to their attention including a right to counsel issue and an issue and others. As a result of these concerns, a resolution was reached. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic charge of Careless Driving. The defendant had to pay a fine and drive with an ignition interlock device in her vehicle for a period of time. Once the defendant pled to Careless Driving the criminal charge was withdrawn.
March 8 – Justin W. – The defendant was charged Driving Over the legal limit for alcohol. The Crown had concerns about the backlog caused by Covid and needed to resolve matters that they might not normally resolve. This was one such matter. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic charge of Careless Driving. The defendant had to pay a fine and drive with an ignition interlock device in their vehicle for a period of time. Once the defendant pled to Careless Driving the criminal charge was withdrawn.
March 7 Wesley H. – The defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving. He lost control of his vehicle late at night and damaged several vehicles parked outside at a car dealership. The defendant was quite young and had never been in trouble before. After lengthy negotiations a resolution was reached. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offense of stunt driving for a fine and a one-year suspension of his driver’s licence. This resolution avoided a criminal conviction for the defendant which was his main concern. Once he entered his plea to the traffic offence, the criminal charge was withdrawn.
Denis S. – Feb. 24 – The defendant was charged with Operating a Conveyance with Excess Blood Alcohol. Given the relatively low readings the prosecutor was agreeable to taking a plea to the alternative offence of Careless Driving, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant was issued a fine and placed on a probation order that included, among other terms, a requirement to use an ignition interlock device when driving for the majority of the probationary period. Following the completion of the plea to the traffic offence, the criminal charge was withdrawn.
Harshadbhai P. – Feb. 24 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation of a Conveyance as well as Operation of a Conveyance with Excess Blood Alcohol (’80 and Over’). As part of a provincial initiative to reduce court backlog the prosecutor offered to resolve this matter by way of a plea to the charge of Careless Driving, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant was issued a fine and a driver’s licence suspension. Following the completion of the plea to the traffic offence, the criminal charges were withdrawn.
Lynne S. – Feb. 22 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation of a Conveyance. After identifying that the police had seized blood from the defendant absent the requisite grounds, the prosecutor agreed to accept a plea to the alternative charge of Careless Driving contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant was issued a fine and placed on a probation order that included, among other terms, a requirement to use an ignition interlock device when driving for the majority of the probationary period. Following the completion of the plea to the traffic offence, the criminal charge was withdrawn.
Sarah C. – Feb. 21 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation of a Conveyance as well as Operation of a Conveyance with Excess Blood Alcohol (’80 and Over’). As part of a provincial initiative to reduce court backlog the prosecutor offered to resolve this matter by way of a plea to the charge of Careless Driving, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant was issued a fine and placed on a probation order that included, among other terms, a requirement to use an ignition interlock device when driving for the majority of the probationary period. Following the completion of the plea to the traffic offence, the criminal charges were withdrawn.
Vance P. – Feb. 21 – The defendant was charged with Dangerous Operation of a Conveyance, Flight from Police, and several provincial offences. After negotiations with the prosecutor they agreed to accept pleas to two offences under the Highway Traffic Act, namely Stunt Driving and Fail to Stop for Police. The court acceded to the joint position that was put forward and imposed fines as well as the minimum 1 year driver’s licence suspension. Following the pleas all remaining charges, including the criminal charges, were withdrawn.
Penelope K. – Feb. 17 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation of a Conveyance and Operation of a Conveyance with Excess Blood Alcohol (’80 and Over’). I was able to punch several holes in the prosecutor’s case during cross-examination of the arresting officer. Ultimately, the trial judge suggested the prosecutor and I try to resolve the matter instead of continuing the trial. The prosecutor agreed to resolve the matter by way of a plea to the charges of Careless Driving contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant was issued a fine and placed on a probation order that included, among other terms, a requirement to use an ignition interlock device when driving for the majority of the probationary period. Following the completion of the plea to the traffic offence, the criminal charges were withdrawn.
Jean-Pierre G. – Feb. 17 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation of a Conveyance and Operation of a Conveyance with Excess Blood Alcohol (’80 and Over’). As part of a provincial initiative to reduce court backlog the prosecutor offered to resolve this matter by way of a plea to the alternative charge of Dangerous Operation of a Conveyance, with an agreed position of a conditional discharge. The court accepted the plea and imposed the discharge thereby allowing the defendant to avoid a criminal conviction being registered. Following the plea the remainder of the charges before the court were withdrawn.
Daniel M. – Feb. 6 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation of a Conveyance and Refusal to Provide a Breath Sample. Following a mistrial the prosecutor agreed to take a plea to the alternative charge of Dangerous Operation rather than reschedule the matter. The court agreed to impose the jointly recommended sentence of a conditional discharge, thereby allowing the defendant to avoid having a criminal conviction registered. Following the plea the remaining criminal charges were withdrawn.
Supreet P. – Feb. 3 – The defendant was charged with Operation of a Conveyance while Impaired as well as with Refusal to Provide a Breath Sample. As part of a provincial initiative to reduce court backlog we were able to convince the prosecutor to resolve this matter by way of a plea to the charges of Careless Driving, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act as well as Obstruct Police with an agreed position for a conditional discharge. The court accepted the negotiated position and the defendant was issued a fine and placed on a probation order that included, among other terms, a requirement to use an ignition interlock device when driving for the majority of the probationary period. As a result of this plea deal the defendant was able to avoid having a criminal conviction registered. Following the completion of the pleas the remaining criminal charges were withdrawn.
Marcin M. – Jan. 31 – The defendant was charged with operating a conveyance with excess blood alcohol (’80 and Over’). The Defence filed an application alleging a violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to be tried within a reasonable period of time. After reviewing the Defence’s materials, the prosecutor agreed to take a plea to the alternative charge of Careless Driving contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant was issued a fine and placed on a probation order that included, among other terms, a requirement to use an ignition interlock device when driving for the majority of the probationary period. Following the completion of the plea to the traffic offence, the criminal charge was withdrawn.
Vivek S. – Jan. 25 – The defendant was charged with operating a conveyance with excess blood alcohol (’80 and Over’). Given that the defendant’s readings were on the lower side of the criminal divide, the prosecutor was agreeable to taking a plea to the alternative offence of Careless Driving, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant was issued a fine and placed on a probation order that included, among other terms, a requirement to use an ignition interlock device when driving for the majority of the probationary period. Following the completion of the plea to the traffic offence, the criminal charge was withdrawn.
Justin L. – Jan. 25 – The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample. After negotiations with the prosecutor, they agreed to resolve this matter to the alternative offence of Careless Driving, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant was issued a fine and placed on a probation order that included, among other terms, a requirement to use an ignition interlock device when driving for the majority of the probationary period. Following the completion of the plea to the traffic offence, the criminal charge was withdrawn.
Jeremie D. – Jan. 24 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation of a Conveyance, Operation of a Conveyance with Excess Blood Alcohol (’80 and Over’) and multiple provincial offences. As part of a provincial initiative to reduce court backlog the prosecutor offered to resolve this matter by way of a plea to the alternative charge of Dangerous Operation of a Conveyance, with an agreed position of a conditional discharge. The court accepted the plea and imposed the discharge thereby allowing the defendant to avoid a criminal conviction being registered. Following the plea the remainder of the charges before the court were withdrawn.
Timothy J. – Jan. 20 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation of a Conveyance as well as Operation of a Conveyance with Excess Blood Alcohol (’80 and Over’). As part of a provincial initiative to reduce court backlog the prosecutor offered to resolve this matter by way of a plea to the charge of Careless Driving, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant was issued a fine and placed on a probation order that included, among other terms, a requirement to use an ignition interlock device when driving for the majority of the probationary term. Following the completion of the plea to the traffic offence, the criminal charges were withdrawn.
Andrew A. – Jan. 20 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation of a Conveyance as well as Operation of a Conveyance with Excess Blood Alcohol. The matter proceeded to trial wherein the defence successfully argued that the prosecutor had failed to discharge its burden of proof with respect to the identity of the defendant as the driver of the vehicle. Accordingly, the judge dismissed both charges.
Kevin G. – Jan. 17 – The defendant was charged with Dangerous Operation of a Conveyance as well as Mischief Under $5,000. After negotiation with the prosecutor they agreed to resolve this matter by way of a plea to Careless Driving, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant was required upfront to make restitution for damaged property. By way of sentence the defendant was made to pay a fine and was placed on probation which included a term that they only be permitted to drive for the purposes of employment or education. Following the completion of the plea to the traffic offence, the criminal charges were withdrawn.
V.V. – Jan. 13 – The defendant was charged with Operating a Conveyance with Excess Blood Alcohol (’80 and Over’) as well as with refusing to provide a breath sample. As part of a provincial initiative to reduce court backlog the prosecutor offered to resolve this matter by way of a plea to the charge of Careless Driving, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant was issued a fine and placed on a probation order that included, among other terms, a requirement to use an ignition interlock device when driving for the majority of the probationary term. Following the completion of the plea to the traffic offence, the criminal charges were withdrawn.
Parwinder G. – Jan. 13 – The defendant was charged with Operating a Conveyance with Excess Blood Alcohol (’80 and Over’) as well as disobeying a stop sign. As part of a provincial initiative to reduce court backlog the prosecutor offered to resolve this matter by way of a plea to the charge of Careless Driving, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant was issued a fine and placed on a probation order that included, among other terms, a requirement to use an ignition interlock device when driving for the majority of the probationary term. Following the completion of the plea to the traffic offence, the remaining charges, including the criminal charge, were withdrawn.
Prek F. – Jan. 13 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation of a Conveyance as well as Operation of a Conveyance with Excess Blood Alcohol (’80 and Over’). As part of a provincial initiative to reduce court backlog the prosecutor agreed to resolve this matter by way of a plea to the charge of Careless Driving, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant was issued a fine, a short licence suspension and thereafter was placed on a probation order that included a term that they only be permitted to operate a vehicle during the daytime. Following the completion of the plea to the traffic offence, the criminal charges were withdrawn.
Simrat S. – Jan. 13 – The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample. The prosecutor had concerns that the trial could not be concluded within the time frame mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada. As a result, the prosecutor agreed to resolve the matter by way of a plea to the charges of Careless Driving contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant was issued a fine and placed on a probation order that included a term not to have any alcohol in their body while driving. Following the completion of the plea to the traffic offence, the criminal charge was withdrawn.
Emmanuel F. – Jan. 11 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation of a Conveyance as well as Operation of a Conveyance with Excess Blood Alcohol (’80 and Over’). As part of a provincial initiative to reduce court backlog the prosecutor offered to resolve this matter by way of a plea to the charge of Careless Driving, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant was issued a fine and placed on a probation order that included, among other terms, a requirement to use an ignition interlock device when driving for the majority of the probationary term. Following the completion of the plea to the traffic offence, the criminal charges were withdrawn.
Lesley H. – Jan. 5 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation of a Conveyance as well as Operation of a Conveyance with Excess Blood Alcohol (’80 and Over’). As part of a provincial initiative to reduce court backlog the prosecutor offered to resolve this matter by way of a plea to the charge of Careless Driving, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant was issued a fine and a driver’s licence suspension. Following the completion of the plea to the traffic offence, the criminal charges were withdrawn.
Kenneth M. – Jan. 3 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation of a Conveyance. As part of a provincial initiative to reduce court backlog we were able to convince the prosecutor to resolve this matter by way of a plea to the charge of Careless Driving, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant was issued a fine and placed on a probation order that included, among other terms, a restriction that only permitted them to drive for the purposes of employment. Following the completion of the plea to the traffic offence, the criminal charge was withdrawn.
