Majuran S. – December 23 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. I was able to convince the trial judge that the arresting officer lacked lawful grounds to arrest the defendant for impaired driving and to demand that he provide breathing samples into a breath testing instrument. I was able to further convince the trial judge that this lack of grounds was serious enough to justify the exclusion of the breath readings from evidence. As a result, there was no other evidence supporting the Over 80 charge and it was dismissed. I also convinced the trial judge that the remaining evidence of impairment was too weak to justify a conviction on the impaired driving charge and that charge was dismissed, as well.
Guillaume F. – December 18 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Excess Blood Alcohol. The defendant had been experiencing a mental health crisis and it was agreed that the equities of the situation supported a non-criminal resolution. A plea was entered to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine and a 6 month driver’s licence suspension. Upon completion of the plea the criminal charge was withdrawn.
Djamah M. – December 10 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the limit. During my cross-examination of the arresting officer, it came to light that evidence that should have been disclosed to the defence before the trial was not so disclosed. During a break in proceedings, I was able to persuade the prosecutor to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the non-criminal charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. She was assessed a fine with no suspension of her driving privileges. Upon her entering her guilty plea to Careless Driving, the prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.
Naresh R. – Dec. 4 – The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while over the legal limit of alcohol. The charge was dismissed after a trial. The trial judge ruled that the prosecution had not proven that the defendant had either operated his vehicle on the occasion in question nor did it prove that the defendant intended to operate his vehicle.
Luc P. – November 13 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. After reviewing the Charter materials filed on behalf of the defendant alleging breaches of his rights to counsel the prosecutor agreed to take a plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine as well as a 6 month driver’s licence suspension. After the completion of the plea the criminal charges were withdrawn by the prosecutor.
Vinodh A. – November 10 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the limit. In an unusual occurrence, the witnesses for the prosecution had been mistakenly subpoenaed to attend the second day of the trial, several weeks after the first date. Thus, on the first date for trial, no witnesses were available to be called by the prosecution. The prosecutor could have asked that the matter be adjourned to the second day of trial when the witnesses would be attending but he ran the risk that the trial judge would deny his request and he would have had to withdraw both charges outright. Of course, had he succeeded in his request, the defendant would have been put in a difficult situation as the evidence against him was strong and his breath readings were very high. In addition, he had caused a motor vehicle accident. In light of all this, the prosecutor and I reached a resolution. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal, Highway Traffic Act offence of careless driving. After the plea was entered the criminal charges were withdrawn.
Brian T – November 9 – The defendant was charged with Over 80 after a single motor vehicle collision. After reviewing the case, it was clear to me that the prosecutor would have a problem proving time of driving. Following the initial discussions, they took the position that they still had a reasonable prospect of conviction and the matter was set down for trial. As the trial date approached however, the prosecutor ultimately came to change their view and withdrew the criminal charge rather than proceeding to trial.
Corey S. – November 9 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after a trial. I was able to convince the trial judge that the defendant’s right to counsel had been infringed. He was not given the opportunity to look up a private lawyer notwithstanding several explicit requests by him to do so. I also convinced the trial judge that this infringement was so serious that the only appropriate remedy was to exclude the breath readings from evidence. Once this was done, there was no remaining evidence available to the prosecution to prove that the defendant drove above the legal limit of alcohol and the trial judge dismissed the charge.
Austin B. – November 2 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving by drugs and unlawful possession of drugs. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. I convinced the trial judge that there was sufficiently contradictory evidence amongst the several officers who testified as to raise a doubt about the condition of the defendant at the time of driving and thereby raise a doubt about the impaired driving charge. I was also able to convince the trial judge that the prosecution had not proven that the defendant was in possession of the drugs in question as the drugs were found in the car the defendant was driving and the defendant had a passenger. It was unclear on the evidence as to whom the drugs belonged.
Eric M. – November 2 – The defendant was charged with being in Care and Control of a Motor Vehicle while Over 80. After several rounds of negotiations with the prosecutor and providing in advance evidence that the vehicle in question was inoperable, it was agreed that the defendant would be allowed to plead guilty to Unlawful Consumption of Alcohol contrary to the Liquor Licence Act. The defendant received a fine and a 1 year period of probation during which he would not be permitted to drive between the hours of 10pm and 5am, or while he had any alcohol in his body. Upon completion of the plea the criminal charge was withdrawn.
Abid A. – October 16 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The matter was set down for trial prior to the COVID pandemic as the prosecutor was not agreeable to resolve the matter without a plea to the criminal charge. After trials began to have to be rescheduled due to the pandemic, discussions were re-commenced and, after emphasizing the defendant’s personal circumstances and the impact that a driving prohibition would have on his family, an agreement was reached that involved a plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. A fine was imposed in addition to driving restrictions short of a full licence suspension. Upon entering the plea, the criminal charge was withdrawn by the prosecutor.
Suba T – October 6 – The defendant was charged with both Impaired Driving and Over 80. The prosecutor had a strong case and, with no way to resolve the matter without a criminal conviction and driving prohibition, the matter was set down for trial. Realizing the extent of the trial backlog that was going to be created in the defendant’s jurisdiction, discussions with the prosecutor were renewed following the onset of the COVID pandemic. An agreement was reached that allowed the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. A fine was imposed in addition to a probation order with certain driving restrictions. As it was preferable to the defendant, I was also able to persuade the prosecutor to agree to limiting driving to work purposes allowing the defendant to avoid a licence suspension or the requirement to install an ignition interlock device. Once the plea was entered, the criminal charges of Impaired Driving and Over 80 were withdrawn by the prosecutor.
Heather T. – October 1 – The defendant was charged with Operation of a Conveyance with Excess Blood Alcohol. During conversations with the prosecutor we raised an issue with the implementation or rights to counsel as well as the possibility of a constitutional challenge to the legislation dealing with post-event drinking. After reviewing their case again the prosecutor agreed to accept a plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine along with a 6 month period of probation, which included terms that a) she not operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content above zero; and b) that she only drive for the purposes of work during the first 3 months of the order. Following the completion of the plea the criminal charge was withdrawn.
Cory V. – September 23 – The defendant was charged with Impaired, Over 80, Dangerous Driving, and Driving while Disqualified. After repeated conversations with the prosecutor, identified weaknesses combined with the pressures of Covid-19 combined to result in an agreement to resolve the matter to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine along with a 1 year period of probation requiring that the defendant a) attend counselling for alcohol issues; and b) not drive with a blood alcohol content exceeding zero. Following the plea to the traffic offence all criminal charges were withdrawn.
Stephen G. – September 4 – The defendant was charged with Over 80 following a traffic stop outside of a restaurant. During pre-trial discussion with the prosecutor, an issue was identified regarding a delay at the roadside and access to a lawyer following the arrest. As a result, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. Once the plea was entered, the prosecutor withdrew the Criminal Code charge of Over 80.
John B. – August 27 – The defendant was charged with Operating a Vehicle while Impaired by a Drug as well as Possession of a Drug (Fentanyl). During pre-trial discussions with the prosecutor we identified issues in the way the defendant was treated while in police custody, including non-responsiveness to pain issues as well as the filming of his washroom use. As a result of these issues the prosecutor agreed to resolve the driving charge by way of a plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The court imposed a fine as well as a 6 month period of probation primarily restricting the defendant to driving only for the purpose of commuting to and from work. We were also successful in convincing the prosecutor that they had no reasonable prospect of conviction on the drug charge due to the failure of the police to seize any evidence for analysis. Based on all of the above, the prosecutor withdrew all criminal charges.
Angela C. – August 27 – The defendant was charged with Over 80 along with the Highway Traffic Act offence of Stunt Driving. Issues were identified relating to deficiencies in the provision of the defendant’s right to counsel as well as privacy issues during the detention at the Police Detachment. The matter was set for trial but was not able to proceed on the scheduled trial date. During subsequent negotiations with the prosecutor, an agreement was reached that allowed the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving rather than the Criminal Code Over 80 charge. In addition, the prosecutor agreed to reduce the Stunt Driving charge to a simple speeding ticket thereby substantially reducing the fine and avoiding additional demerit points. The plea was entered and the prosecutor asked the court to withdraw the Criminal Code charge of Over 80.
Jean-Luc K. – August 26 – The defendant was charged with Operation with Excess Blood Alcohol as well as several provincial offences. A significant problem with the implementation of the defendant’s rights to counsel was identified. Upon being made aware of this, the prosecutor agreed to accept a plea to the Highway Traffic offence of Careless Driving. The defendant made a charitable donation up front and the court imposed a sentence of a fine and a 1 year period of probation during which the defendant was required to have an interlock device installed while driving. Upon completion of the plea all remaining charges, including the criminal charge, were withdrawn.
Davey H. – August 18 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. We identified for the prosecutor an unlawful seizure that took place in the form of the illegal weighing of the defendant. As a result of this constitutional issue that would have been raised at trial, the prosecutor agreed to accept a plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The court imposed a fine and 1 year period of probation during which the defendant was required to have a blood alcohol content of zero while driving. Upon completion of the plea the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge.
Andrew L. – August 10 – The defendant was charged with Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample. Through analysis of the disclosed evidence it became clear to the defence that key portions of video footage from the roadside that would have captured the alleged offence had not been provided. The prosecutor, faced with a potentially fatal Charter application alleging lost evidence, agreed to resolve the matter to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The court imposed a fine along with a 1 year period of probation, the last 11 months of which required the use of an ignition interlock device when driving (other than during the course of employment). Following the completion of the plea the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge.
Estefania F. – August 7 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving. After a series of discussions with the prosecutor and the provision of materials establishing the good character of the defendant, an agreement was reached involving a plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving with driving restrictions limited to a requirement to have a blood alcohol level of 0 at all times while driving. The plea was entered and the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge of Impaired Driving.
Joshua W. – August 7 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. Issues arose at trial on the basis of which the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead to the alternative charge under the Highway Traffic Act of Careless Driving if he completed upfront alcohol counselling. The matter was adjourned for the counselling to take place. In resolving the plea, the court imposed a fine along with a 1 year period of probation during which the defendant was required to have a blood alcohol content of zero while driving. After the plea was completed the criminal charges were withdrawn.
Rebecca C. – August 6 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. During the pre-trial process we identified for the prosecutor several potential issues with their case, the most significant of which was the police behaviour of funnelling the defendant towards the use of Duty Counsel. These issues in combination with the prosecutor’s desire to resolve files due to the pressures of the Covid-19 pandemic led to an offer being made to enter a plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The deal was accepted and a fine was imposed along with a period of probation for 12 months requiring that the defendant drive only with a blood alcohol level of zero, and, for the first 6 months, drive only to and from employment. After the plea was completed the criminal charge was withdrawn.
Franz N. – July 28 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. During cross-examination of the arresting officer, it became apparent that the officer had little to no memory of the events on the date in question and was relying on his notes to replace his lack of recollection, something the law does not allow save in limited circumstances. During a break in the proceedings, I was able to persuade the prosecutor to withdraw the criminal charges and allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine along with a 12 month period of probation requiring that the defendant not drive unless his blood alcohol content was zero. After the plea was completed the criminal charges were withdrawn.
Connor M. – July 23 – The defendant was charged with Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample into a Screening Device. At the pre-trial stage we identified multiple potential Charter violations to the prosecutor, including unlawful delays and the failure to provide rights to counsel during an investigative detention. As a result of the potential problems they would have had proving their case the prosecutor agreed to take a plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The plea was entered to this alternative charge and a fine was imposed along with a period of probation for 1 year requiring that he not have alcohol in his body while driving, and, for the first 6 months, that he drive only to and from work. After the plea was completed the criminal charge was withdrawn.
Jesus C. – July 22 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. As the blood alcohol readings were just above the legal limit and arguably below given the margin of error of the instrument used to take the measurements, it was proposed to the prosecutor that a constitutional challenge was possible if the matter proceeded to trial. After a process of negotiation, the prosecutor ultimately agreed that the matter could resolve by way of a guilty plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. Once the plea was entered, the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge.
Hossam K. – July 21 – The defendant was charged with Over 80 and Stunt Driving. As a result of the fact that he was present in Canada on a work permit, a conviction on the criminal count would have resulted in serious immigration consequences. Given these personal circumstances and the fact that the alleged readings were only marginally over the limit we were able to convince the prosecutor to agree to take a plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The matter was resolved accordingly and a fine was imposed along with a 12 month period of probation with the only condition being a requirement to have a blood alcohol level of zero at all times while driving. Once the plea was complete, the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge.
Patricia J. – July 20 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. During pre-trial discussions with the prosecutor we raised a number of problems with the Crown’s case, including constitutional issues such as a lack of grounds to take a sample of blood and the timing of searches in relation to when the defendant requested to speak to counsel. As a result of Covid-19 the prosecutor took a second look at this case and despite elevated blood alcohol readings agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Offence of Careless Driving. The matter was resolved, and a fine was imposed along with a 6-month licence suspension and a 12 month period of probation with the only condition being a requirement to have a blood alcohol level of zero at all times while driving. Once the plea was complete, the prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.
Thai T – July 16 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. As the blood alcohol readings were just above the legal limit (and arguably below given the margin of error of the instrument used to take the measurements), it was proposed to the prosecutor that a constitutional challenge was possible if the matter proceeded to trial. After a process of negotiation, the prosecutor ultimately agreed that the matter could resolve by way of a guilty plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. Once the plea was entered, the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge of Over 80.
Bruce K. – July 8 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit of alcohol. Both charges were dismissed by the trial judge after a trial. The trial judge accepted my argument that the prosecutor had not proven that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question on the occasion in question. In other words, the issue of identity had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Deepak C. – June 25 – The Defendant was charged with Over 80. The matter was scheduled for trial but had to be adjourned due to the Covid-19 pandemic. After re-entering negotiations with the prosecutor and again highlighting the multiple issues with the manner in which the police implemented the defendant’s right to counsel, they agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic offence of Careless Driving. The matter was resolved and a fine was imposed along with a 6 month period of probation with the only condition being a requirement to have a blood alcohol level of zero at all times while driving. Once the plea was complete, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.
Alana R. – June 23 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Following the defendant’s release, the arresting officer continued to engage with the defendant in a concerning and problematic manner. We brought this behaviour to the prosecutor’s attention and assisted the defendant in providing a statement as part of a police disciplinary investigation. In light of the allegations raised, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Offence of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine, a 1 month driving suspension and a further period of probation requiring that she only drive for employment purposes and only if her blood alcohol was zero. Following the completion of the plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.
Suntae Y. – June 23 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. After cross-examination of the arresting officer, it became clear to the prosecutor that he would have difficulty establishing that the officer had grounds to make the roadside screening demand. During a break in the trial, a resolution was reached wherein the defendant would be permitted to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. In addition to a fine, the defendant was received a period of probation with a requirement to refrain from driving any vehicle other than one with an ignition interlock installed for a period of one year. Following the plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.
Marie C. – June 22 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Refuse Breathalyzer. We brought to the prosecutor’s attention issues with the grounds for arrest, delay at the roadside, and the manner in which police handled the defendant’s rights to counsel. The prosecutor, in light of the issues raised, the background circumstances of the pandemic, and the advanced age of the defendant combined with her lack of a criminal record agreed to take a plea of guilty to the Highway Traffic Offence of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine and a period of probation requiring that she not drive except for certain medical purposes and once a week to do her shopping. Following the completion of the plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act, the prosecutor withdrew the Impaired and Refuse charges.
Michael T. – June 16 – The defendant was charged with being Impaired by a Drug and consequently also being in Breach of a Court Order. Both charges were dismissed after trial. After leading evidence from multiple witnesses that the drugs in question were not ingested voluntarily, the judge agreed that the prosecutor had not proven this essential component of these offences to a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Samantha H. – June 11 – The defendant was charged with Over 80 as well as several provincial offences. As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic the court was unable to proceed with the defendant’s scheduled trial date. Due to concerns with delays and the expected backlog courts will be facing upon resuming full operations, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Offence of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine and a period of probation during which she was only permitted to drive to and from employment. Following the completion of the plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act, the prosecutor withdrew all other charges, including the Over 80.
Greg P. – June 10 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. We brought to the prosecutor’s attention a problem with their case related to the way rights to counsel were handled by police. Ultimately the prosecutor agreed to resolve the matter by way of a plea to the Highway Traffic Offence of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine and a period of probation that required him not to have any alcohol in his body while driving. Following the completion of the plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act, the prosecutor withdrew the Impaired and Over 80 charges.
Kaveh M. – June 9 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The matter was scheduled for trial and a Charter Application was served on the prosecutor identifying issues relating to the privacy issues at the police detachment and the length of time the defendant was detained at the detachment following the provision of breath samples. Prior to the scheduled date of the trial, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine and no further restrictions on his ability to operate a motor vehicle. Upon the completion of the plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.
Laura H. – June 8 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and concerns regarding the backlog that courts were facing upon resuming full operations we were able to persuade the prosecutor to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Offence of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine and a probationary term requiring that she not have any alcohol in her body while driving. After the plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act was completed the prosecutor withdrew the Impaired and Over 80 charges.
Lelio D. – June 3 – The Defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Over 80 and Dangerous Driving. As a Permanent Resident, he was extremely concerned about the prospect of a criminal conviction. As part of negotiations with the prosecutor, issues were identified in relation to the manner in which police implemented the defendant’s right to counsel, as well as an issue with a significant delay in transporting the defendant to the detachment for breath testing following his arrest. As a result, the prosecutor was persuaded to agree to a plea to only the Dangerous Driving offence, which allowed the defence to seek a conditional discharge as opposed to a criminal conviction. At the sentencing hearing, the judge was persuaded that a conviction was not necessary and granted a conditional discharge. Following the plea, the prosecutor withdrew the Impaired Driving and Over 80 charges.
Andrew P. – June 2 – The defendant was charged with the criminal charge of Over 80, and Stunt Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. In the early stages of the traffic stop, the officer demanded that the defendant blow into his face. This was followed by a delay in making a roadside screening demand. Initially, the prosecutor was prepared to proceed to trial in spite of these issues. After further negotiation, they were persuaded that the officer’s conduct raised enough of an issue to allow them to offer a plea to Careless Driving and the original Stunt Driving charge. The defendant received a fine and no further restrictions on his ability to operate a motor vehicle. Following the plea to the Highway Traffic Act offences of Careless Driving and Stunt Driving, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.
Updesh S. – February 11 – The defendant was charged with the criminal offence of Dangerous Driving and Stunt Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. After cross-examination of the Crown’s police and civilian witnesses and the defendant’s own testimony, the Judge at trial found that she could not find that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant was acquitted of all charges.
Judy P. – Feb. 19 – Thee defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit of alcohol. Both charges were dismissed by the trial judge after a trial. The trial judge accepted my argument that the prosecutor had not proven that the defendant drove the vehicle in question on the occasion in question.
Kenneth J. – Jan. 14 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Close to the trial date, it became apparent that the arresting officer would not be available for court for medical reasons. Because of concerns the prosecutor had of how an adjournment may infringe the defendant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time, 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 a period of probation where the defendant could only operate his motor vehicle for work purposes for six months after which he would be entitled to operate his motor vehicle for any purpose. After the plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act was entered the prosecutor withdrew the Impaired and Over 80 charges.
Danuta L. – Jan. 9 – The defendant was charged with Refuse to Comply with a Drug Recognition Evaluation. The prosecutor had to seek an adjournment of the trial dates that were set on more than one occasion. Because of concerns the prosecutor had of how the adjournments may infringe the defendant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time, an agreement was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a $1,000 fine and 12 month probation order whereby she could only operate her motor vehicle with no alcohol in her system and complete the Back on Track program. After the plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act was entered the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge of Refuse to Comply with a Drug Recognition Evaluation.
Ryan – K. – Jan. 2 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Refuse Breathalyzer and Dangerous Driving. All three of these charges were dismissed after a trial. The trial judge accepted my contention that the prosecutor had led insufficient evidence to prove that the driving on this occasion met the legal definition of “dangerous” even though there was a serious one-car collision involving the defendant. The trial judge also accepted my argument that because of the serious injuries suffered by the defendant, it was impossible to conclude that he was impaired by alcohol on this occasion or that he wilfully refused to provide breath samples
Mark E. – January 24 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation and Over 80 as well as multiple Highway Traffic Act offences. At trial, I was able to establish that the police lacked the proper grounds to arrest the defendant and were deficient in implementing the defendant’s right to counsel. On that basis, the Judge was persuaded that the evidence of the defendant’s blood alcohol concentration should not be admitted as evidence. Further, on the remaining evidence, the Judge was not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt on the impaired charge. The client was acquitted of both criminal charges and the Highway Traffic Act offences were withdrawn by the prosecutor.
