Akshay S. – June 21 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and driving over the legal limit of alcohol. Because of concerns the prosecutor had that the trial would be concluded within a reasonable time from the date the defendant was charged (a requirement in the Canadian Charter of Rights) an offer was made to me that was accepted by the defendant. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic offence charge of Careless Driving. He was required to pay a fine and take alcohol counselling (the breath readings were exceedingly high). Once the defendant entered his guilty plea to Careless Driving, the prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges. The defendant was a young professional so avoiding a criminal record was quite important to him.
Racheal C. – June 20 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving (by drugs) and illegal possession of drugs. The matter went to trial. Both charges were dismissed by the Judge. The judge ruled that the prosecution had not proven that the defendant was impaired at the time of driving. The judge also excluded all evidence of drugs found by the police. The judge agreed with my argument that the drugs were seized unlawfully by police and therefore were not admissible at the trial. In any event, the prosecutor agreed that there was no evidence presented to show the defendant was in possession of an amount of the drug that was deemed unlawful by the regulations under the Criminal Code.
Jeff D. – June 13 – The defendant was charged with Operating a Conveyance with Excess Blood Alcohol. The matter went to trial but did not finish on the originally scheduled date. Issues that arose when trying to schedule further dates created a fresh opportunity for negotiation. As a result, the defendant was able to enter a guilty plea to the alternative charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant received a fine and a 4 month driver’s licence suspension. As part of the mechanism of the plea, the defendant was found not guilty of the criminal charge.
Kyra C. – June 9 – The defendant was charged with driving over the legal limit of alcohol. The matter went to trial. During the trial, I argued that the police infringed the defendant’s right to counsel as they failed to advise her of her options when she expressed dissatisfaction with the legal aid lawyer she spoke to at the station. After I cross-examined the arresting officer, the prosecutor offered a resolution that was accepted by the defendant. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. She was given a fine and a period of probation including a term that, for 11 months, she only operate a vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device. This resolution avoided a criminal record for this young defendant and also avoided a suspension of her driving privileges. After the plea was entered to Careless Driving, the criminal charge was withdrawn.
Cameron F. – June 2 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation of a Conveyance as well as Refusal to Provide a Breath Sample. Several arguments were raised at trial. The judge ultimately dismissed the charge of refusal on the basis that police had failed to make a breath demand that complied with the statutory requirements. The impaired charge was ultimately also dismissed after evidence was excluded from the trial as a result of successful Charter applications. The court found that police had breached the defendant’s rights not to be arbitrarily detained as well as his rights to counsel. As a result of the exclusion there was no evidence remaining sufficient to ground a conviction. The defendant was found not guilty on all charges.
Kristopher D. – June 2 – The client was charged with driving over the legal limit after a police investigation of a motor vehicle collision. As a permanent resident, he had no choice but to take his matter to trial in order to avoid triggering immigration consequences. At trial, the prosecutor declined to call a police officer who had significant interaction with the client as a witness. As a result, I was able to persuade the Judge that the prosecutor had not established that the client’s statement, in which he identified himself as the driver, was voluntary. The statement was excluded from evidence leaving no evidence of who had been operating the motor vehicle and resulting in the client being acquitted of the criminal charge.
Jordan J. – May 17 – The defendant was charged with operating a vehicle above the legal limit for alcohol. The matter went to trial. The judge dismissed the charge. The judge agreed with my argument that the defendant’s right to counsel was infringed because police put forth inadequate efforts to contact his mother who the defendant asked to speak to. He wanted her to help him get a private lawyer to assist him with advice on this occasion.
Zhirong L. – May 12 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and driving above the legal limit for alcohol. The defendant’s main concern was his immigration status which would have been adversely affected by a criminal conviction and would have left him vulnerable to deportation. A resolution was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to dangerous driving which is another offence under the Criminal Code. However, the prosecutor agreed to only seek a conditional discharge which is not considered a “conviction” under Canadian law. Such a resolution would not be available for either of the 2 drinking and driving offences for which the defendant was originally charged. The judge did, in fact, impose a conditional discharge which avoided a criminal conviction for him. Upon entering his plea to dangerous driving, both drinking and driving offences were dismissed by the judge.
Sandra D. – April 13 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation of a Conveyance as well as Operation of a Conveyance with Excess Blood Alcohol. During pretrial discussions we were able to convince the prosecutor that they would have difficulties at trial arising from deficiencies in how police implemented the defendant’s rights to counsel. As a result, the prosecutor agreed that the defendant could plead guilty to the charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. The plea was accepted by the court and the defendant received a fine as well as a probation order requiring her to have no alcohol in her body when operating a motor vehicle. Following the plea the criminal charges were withdrawn.
Raymond G. – April 5 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation, Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample, and Refusing to Provide a Sample where bodily harm has resulted. The Crown encountered availability issues for a necessary witness, specifically, the arresting officer. As a result of this problem, a resolution was negotiated and then agreed to. The defendant pled guilty to the charge of careless driving, receiving a fine and a probation order requiring a charitable donation as well as restrictions on the purposes for which the defendant could drive. After the plea was completed the criminal charges were withdrawn.
Gabriel P. – April 4 – The defendant was charged with Operating a Conveyance with Excess Blood Alcohol (’80 and Over’) as well as several provincial offences. As a result of the client’s youth and lack of a criminal record we were able to convince the prosecutor to resolve the matter to the alternative offence of Dangerous Operation of a Conveyance with a joint position for a conditional discharge alongside a provincial offence. The court accepted the defendant’s plea and imposed a conditional discharge, thereby allowing the defendant to avoid having a conviction entered onto his criminal record.
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.