Jose R. – Dec. 10 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and possession of illicit narcotics. Both charges were stayed (which is the equivalent of a dismissal) by the judge as the matter had taken too long to get to trial and thereby infringed the defendant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time.
Napiel M. – Nov. 26 – The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample. The matter went to trial. After I finished cross-examination of all of the witnesses, the prosecutor realized the case could not be proven as a result of several issues that became apparent during the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecutor invited the trial judge to dismiss the charge and the trial judge did so.
Brian M. – Oct. 24 – The defendant was charged with driving over the legal limit of alcohol. The matter went to trial. After I cross-examined the arresting officer, the prosecutor realized there were problems with the case related to reasonable and probably grounds for arrest and whether the defendant had been subjected to arbitrary detention. As a result, a resolution was reached. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic charge of careless driving for a fine and no suspension of his driving privileges. Once this plea was entered, the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge of driving over the legal limit.
Fraser W.- Sept. 9 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit for alcohol. Prior to trial, the prosecutor recognized there was potential problems proving their case because the defendant was going to testify that he drank alcohol after driving. As a result, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the traffic offence of careless driving. He was sentenced to a fine and a donation to charity. He was also put on a 2-year period of probation whereby for the first year he was only allowed to drive for work purposes. The second year of probation he had no such restriction. This resolution allowed the defendant to keep his job (which required his ability to drive) and, of course, it avoided a criminal conviction. Once the defendant entered his guilty plea to careless driving, Both criminal charges were withdrawn.
Stephen C. – Sept. 5 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal alcohol limit. There was a trial. During the trial, the prosecutor realized the over the limit charge could not be proven because of obvious infringements of the defendant’s constitutional rights. Later on in the trial, I was able to convince the prosecutor that the evidence on the impaired driving charge was also questionable because of clear contradictions in the evidence of the two officers who testified. As a result, a resolution was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the traffic offence of careless driving for a $1000 fine and a period of probation wherein he agreed not to drive a motor vehicle with any alcohol in his system for one year. Both criminal charges were withdrawn.
Amninder S.- August 26 – The defendant was charged with fail to provide a breath sample. The matter was set down for trial. Shortly before the trial date, we were advised that another trial had priority in the same courtroom and the defendant’s matter would not likely be reached that day. Because of concerns the prosecutor had about a future date infringing the defendant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time, a resolution was reached. The defendant was permitted to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of careless driving for a fine and no license suspension. Once the plea was entered to careless driving the criminal charge of failing to provide a breath sample was withdrawn.
Kamaljit S.- Aug. 9 – The defendant was charged with driving over the legal limit of alcohol. The charge was dismissed after trial. Like in the case cited below for August 8, I was able to convince the judge that the defendant’s right to counsel had been infringed and that the infringement was serious enough to justify an exclusion of the breath readings which led to this charge being dismissed, as well.
Satvir B. – Aug. 8 – The defendant was charged with driving over the legal limit of alcohol. The charge was dismissed after trial. I was able to convince the judge that the defendant’s right to counsel had been infringed and that the infringement was serious enough to justify an exclusion of the breath readings which led to the charge being dismissed.
Salvatore C. – July 31 – The defendant was charged with driving over the legal limit of alcohol. We were able to persuade the prosecutor that they would have difficulties proving that the defendant was above the legal limit at the time of driving because he had consumed alcohol after the driving had ended. The prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of careless driving for a fine and a requirement that he drive with an ignition interlock in his car for 11 months. After the defendant pled guilty to this traffic charge, the criminal charge was withdrawn.
Emma H. – July 26 – The defendant was charged with the criminal charge of driving over the legal limit for alcohol and the provincial offences charges of stunt driving and driving with open alcohol. This matter went to trial. After I cross-examined the arresting officer, it became clear to the prosecutor that there were many problems with their case related to grounds for arrest and rights to counsel. As a result, a resolution was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to enter a plea to the traffic offence of careless driving. She was sentenced to a fine and a period of 11 months whereby she could only drive a vehicle that had an ignition interlock installed. After the defendant entered her guilty plea to careless driving, the criminal charge of driving over the legal limit, and the Provincial offences charges of stunt driving and driving with open alcohol were withdrawn.
Jermayne M. – July 24 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving, driving over the legal limit of alcohol, failure to stop after an accident and driving under suspension. Partway through the trial it became clear to the prosecutor that their case could not be proven as there was no admissible evidence that the defendant was the driver of the motor vehicle in question. All charges were withdrawn.
Brandon G. – June 26 – The defendant was charged with driving over the legal limit of alcohol (or “80 plus”). His readings were towards the lower end and he had no previous dealings with police. As a result, a resolution was reached with the prosecutor. The defendant was permitted to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic charge of careless driving. He was required to pay a fine but received no license suspension. Once the guilty plea to careless driving was entered, the criminal charge of driving over the legal limit for alcohol was withdrawn.
Camilla H. – June 20 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample. The matter was set down for trial. Prior to trial, we served the prosecution with notice that we would be arguing at trial that the defendant’s constitutional rights were infringed specifically related to her right to counsel, her right to be free from arbitrary detention and her right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure. Because of concerns the prosecution had regarding these issues, a resolution was reached. The defendant was permitted to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of careless driving for a fine and some limitations on her driving for a period of some months. Once the defendant entered her guilty plea to careless driving, the criminal charges of impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample were withdrawn.
Judith S. – May 29 – The defendant was charged with driving over the legal limit of alcohol. There was a potential difficulty with the prosecution proving that the defendant drove the vehicle as the case involved a single motor vehicle accident and the defendant was out of the vehicle by the time the police arrived at the scene. As a result, the prosecutor offered a resolution that was accepted by the defendant. She was permitted to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of careless driving for a fine and a period of several months wherein she was only allowed to drive a vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device. Once that period elapsed, the device could be removed from the vehicle. Once the defendant entered her guilty plea to careless driving, the criminal charge of driving over the legal limit for alcohol was withdrawn.
Krissa L. – May 29 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit of alcohol. The prosecutor (for reasons that were not communicated to us) offered a resolution that was accepted by the defendant. She was permitted to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of careless driving for a fine and a period of several months wherein she was only allowed to drive a vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device. Once that period elapsed, the device could be removed from the vehicle. Once the defendant entered her guilty plea to careless driving, the two criminal charges of impaired driving and driving over the legal limit for alcohol were withdrawn.
Joao M. – May 15 – The defendant was charged with dangerous driving and assault with a weapon as a result of an alleged road rage incident between the defendant and another motorist. We were able to convince the prosecutor that both parties shared some blame. As a result, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of careless driving which included a fine and a 4-month term where he could not drive, followed by a 4-month term where he could only drive for work purposes. After he entered his plea to careless driving the charges of dangerous driving and assault with weapon were withdrawn.
Abideen A. – April 10 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit for alcohol. The defendant was not a Canadian citizen so a criminal conviction may have resulted in him being removed from the country. After lengthy negotiations, a resolution was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the criminal offence of Dangerous driving. It was jointly recommended to the trial judge that a conditional discharge be imposed. A conditional discharge is not considered a criminal conviction in Canadian law and therefore would not result in the defendant being deported. He did receive a two-year driving prohibition and a one-year period of probation but he avoided a criminal conviction. Once he entered the plea to Dangerous driving, the impaired driving and driving over the legal limit of alcohol charges were withdrawn.
Brent S. – April 8 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving, driving over the legal limit for alcohol, and fail to remain after an accident. The matter proceeded to trial. During the trial, it became apparent to the prosecutor that there was limited evidence proving that the defendant drove the vehicle at the time of the accident. As a result a resolution was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of careless driving for a fine and a period of probation whereby he could only drive with an ignition interlock in his vehicle. Upon entering this plea, the criminal charges and the fail to remain charge were withdrawn by the prosecutor.
Y. – April 2 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit of alcohol. I was able to persuade the prosecutor that there would be substantial difficulties for the prosecution at a trial to prove that the defendant was the operator of the motor vehicle in question. As a result, the prosecutor allowed the defendant to plead guilty to the minor traffic offence of Start from stop not in safety for a fine and no license suspension. After the defendant entered the plea to this charge, the criminal charges were withdrawn.
Brent S. – March 25 – The defendant was charged with the criminal charges of impaired driving and driving over the legal limit for alcohol, and with the traffic charge of failing to remain after accident. The matter went to trial. After I cross-examined the police witness it became apparent to the prosecutor that there would be difficulties proving that the defendant was the driver of the motor vehicle on this occasion. As a result, a resolution was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the traffic offence of careless driving with certain terms including a requirement that he drive with an ignition interlock device in his car for 11 months. After the plea to careless driving was entered by the defendant, the criminal charges and the failing to remain charge were withdrawn.
Dean L. – March 21 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit of alcohol. After the trial ended but before a judgment was rendered by the trial judge, a resolution was reached. The prosecutor allowed the defendant to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of careless driving for a fine and a term that he drive with an ignition interlock in his car for 11 months. Once the defendant pled guilty to this traffic offence, the criminal charges were withdrawn.
Christine W. – March 21 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit of alcohol. Both charges were dismissed after trial. The over the limit charge was dismissed as I was able to persuade the trial judge that the prosecution had not proven that the breath readings were accurate based on the prosecution failing to lead evidence of tests required by the Criminal Code. The prosecutor agreed that the impaired driving charge had not been proven so the judge dismissed that charge, as well.
Roopinder K. – March 18 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit of alcohol as well as assaulting a police officer. The prosecutor opted not to proceed on the charge of driving over the legal limit of alcohol charge due to the unavailability of a witness the prosecution needed to prove that charge. The judge dismissed the impaired driving charge after trial. I was able to convince the trial judge that the evidence led by the prosecution was insufficient to prove impairment by alcohol beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant was found guilty of assault with intent to resist arrest and received a suspended sentence with probation.
Abel G. – Jan. 16 – The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample. The charge was dismissed after a trial. I was able to persuade the trial judge that, because of language difficulties experienced by the defendant during the investigation, the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard of proof required to prove a criminal charge) that the defendant willfully refused to provide a breath sample.
Armindo V. – Jan. 9 – 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.
Amber G. – Jan. 4 – The defendant was charged refusing to provide a breath sample. The charge was dismissed after a trial. I was able to persuade the trial judge that the police lacked the required legal grounds to make a lawful demand. Thus, even though the defendant did not provide a breath sample, the judge concluded that no offence had been committed because of the said lack of grounds.
Brandon K. – Jan. 3 – The defendant was charged with driving over the legal limit for alcohol. I was able to persuade the prosecutor that the defendant’s right to counsel had been infringed during the investigation as the police denied him his right to contact a third party, specifically, his mother, to assist him in contacting a lawyer. As a result, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to enter a plea to the traffic offence of careless driving. The defendant had to pay a fine and also had to make a donation to charity but did not lose his license nor, of course, did he incur a criminal record. Once he entered his plea to this traffic offence, the criminal charge was withdrawn.
