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 Following the completion of the plea to the traffic offence, the criminal charge was withdrawn.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 Following the completion of the plea to the traffic offence, the criminal charges were withdrawn.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 Following the completion of the plea to the traffic offence, the criminal charge was withdrawn.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 Following the completion of the plea to the traffic offence, the criminal charges were withdrawn.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.
