Farid A. – April 1 – The defendant was charged with failing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device. During pre-trial discussions we convinced the prosecutor that there were several live issues with respect to the police officer’s grounds for making the breath demand. As a result, the prosecutor agreed to accept a plea to the alternative charge of Careless Driving contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant received a fine and a probation order requiring him to have no alcohol in his system while driving. After the plea was completed the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge.

 

Liam M. – March 23 – The defendant was charged with driving over the legal limit as well as stunt driving. The matter was set down for trial but was not completed on its scheduled date. On the rescheduled date the court was double booked and the prosecutor opted to give priority to the other matter that was before the court, resulting in a further adjournment. As a result of these delays we brought an application before the court alleging that the defendant’s constitutional right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated. After hearing the arguments from both sides the judge granted our application and stayed all charges that were before the court, thereby bringing the prosecution to an end.

 

Anderson G. – February 28 -The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Driving Over the legal limit. When the prosecutor concluded the presentation of his case, I argued that the police had violated the defendant’s right to be free from arbitrary detention and unlawful seizure (specifically, the seizure of breath samples). The trial judge accepted my argument and dismissed both charges.

 

Cameron P – February 17 – The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle, operation of a vehicle with excess blood alcohol, novice driver BAC exceeding zero, and open alcohol in the vehicle. As a result of the relatively low readings and the pressures on the court due to the pandemic we were able to convince the prosecutor to let the defendant plead guilty to the alternative Highway Traffic Act charge of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine and period of probation during which he was unable to drive and had to complete counselling. At the conclusion of the plea all remaining charges before the court, including the criminal charges, were withdrawn.

 

Scott G. – January 25 – The client was charged with Impaired Driving and 80 and over.  An issue was identified relating to the arresting officer’s grounds for making the arrest but the prosecutor was initially unwilling to agree to a non-criminal resolution.  The matter was set down for trial but the prosecutor was forced to request an adjournment as a more serious matter was also scheduled in the trial court and took priority.  Given the delay that would be caused by setting a new trial and the issue with the arrest, the prosecutor reconsidered their resolution position and an agreement was reached where the client would plead guilty to the offence of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and certain restrictions on his driving for a 6 month period.  The plea was entered and the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge

 

Obike I. – January 10 – The client was charged with the Criminal Code offence of Operating a Vehicle with Excess Blood Alcohol.  He had not yet received full Canadian Citizenship and was at risk of deportation upon conviction.  After obtaining an immigration opinion letter, a deal was reached with the prosecutor that involved a plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and a period of probation with driving restrictions.  The plea was entered and the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge allowing the client to continue to pursue citizenship.

 

Christopher W. – January 10 -The defendant was charged with Driving over the legal limit. The charge was dismissed after a trial. The trial judge accepted my argument that the prosecutor had failed to prove that my client was the driver of a motor vehicle on the occasion of his arrest.


Robert L. – January 5 – The defendant was charged with a single count of operation of a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol. As a result of the low readings, the lack of any criminal history and the ongoing pandemic, the prosecutor agreed to accept a plea to the Highway Traffic Act charge of Careless Driving. A plea was entered to this charge and the defendant received a fine along with a probation order requiring the defendant to use an ignition interlock device in most situations when driving. Following the completion of the plea the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge.