Jan. 17 – Abel G. – The defendant was charged with Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample. The charge was dismissed after a trial. I was able to persuade the judge that there were several serious problems with the case presented by the Crown, including a lack of evidence that the defendant understood the breath demand because of a language barrier, and a lack of evidence that the officer was using a Government approved breath machine.
Jan. 9 – Armindo V. – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Driving Over the legal limit, assault, two counts of choking and breach of recognizance. The defendant was not a Canadian citizen so a criminal conviction on any of these charges would have left him vulnerable to deportation. On the day of trial, the Crown advised me that he would not be proceeding on the assault and choking charges because the witnesses were not being cooperative. I continued to negotiate with the Crown and we reached the following resolution. All the charges would be withdrawn but the defendant would plead guilty to the offence of Dangerous Driving and we would jointly ask the judge to impose a conditional discharge on the defendant which is not considered a conviction for immigration purposes. The judge agreed to this resolution. Once the plea was entered, all other criminal charges were withdrawn.
Jan. 4 – Amber G. – The defendant was charged with Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample. The charge was dismissed after a trial. I was able to convince the judge that the arresting officer did not have the grounds to demand a breath sample in the first place. I also convinced the judge that the officer’s evidence was not sufficient to prove that the failure of the defendant to provide a breath sample was intentional.
Jan. 2 – Brandon K. – The defendant was charged with Driving Over the legal limit of alcohol. I was able to convince the Crown that there was a serious infringement of the defendant’s right to counsel. The police did not allow the defendant to speak to his mother to assist him in arranging for private counsel even though this was his right. As a result, a resolution was reached. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of Careless Driving. He was required to pay a fine and make a donation to charity. This resolution allowed the defendant to avoid a criminal record and maintain his driving privileges. Once the plea was entered to Careless Driving, the criminal charge was withdrawn.
