Karman K. – April 14 – The defendant was charged with Impaired by drug. The defendant was concerned about losing her driving privilege so the matter was set down for trial. On the morning of trial a potential issue arose with the prosecutor’s case. Counsel spoke with the prosecutor and a resolution was worked out where the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of careless driving for a fine and condition to only drive a vehicle with an ignition interlock in it for 12 months. After the plea to the careless driving was completed, both criminal charge of Impaired by drug was withdrawn.
Danyal H. – April 4 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. His readings were at the low end. There were triable issues in the matter that counsel discussed with the prosecutor. As a result, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead to the Highway Traffic Act charge of careless driving for a fine and a six-month suspension of his driver’s licence. After the plea to the careless driving was completed, both criminal charges of Impaired and Over 80 were withdrawn.
Ricardo C. – March 11 – The defendant was charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle with Excess Blood Alcohol (‘Over 80’), as well as the Highway Traffic Act offences of careless driving and speeding. In light of the relatively low BAC and the lack of a criminal record we were able to convince the prosecutor to allow the accused to plead just to the Careless Driving offence for a fine and one year of probation with the term not to operate a vehicle unless his BAC was zero. Upon the completion of the plea both remaining charges, including the criminal charge, were withdrawn.
Danash T. – March 7 – The defendant was charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle with Excess Blood Alcohol (‘Over 80’). As a result of concerns regarding delay in the trial date being reached, the prosecutor offered a deal in which the accused would instead plead to the Highway Traffic Act offence of careless driving for a fine and a one-year probation order that included a requirement for the use of an ignition interlock device. Upon completion of the plea the criminal charge was withdrawn.
Kumar M. – Jan. 23 – The defendant was charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle with Excess Blood Alcohol (‘Over 80’) as well as being a Novice Driver with Blood Alcohol Exceeding Zero. At trial the judge accepted the defence argument that the prosecutor had not proven the voluntariness of the accused’s statements to police, as a result of which there was no admissible evidence at trial regarding the identity or the driver. In addition, the court also accepted the defence’s argument that the s. 8 Charter rights of the accused were violated and that evidence of the breath samples should be excluded as a result. The voluntariness and the Charter rulings were each independently fatal to the prosecutor’s case and as a result the defendant was found not guilty on all charges.
