Mohammad S. – May 26 – The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance as well as operating a conveyance with excess blood alcohol (‘Over 80’). Both charges were dismissed after a trial. The court was persuaded that a reasonable doubt existed with respect to whether or not the defendant was the driver of the vehicle for which there had been a complaint.
Paulette S. – May 9 The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal Limit for alcohol. Both charges were dismissed at a trial. At the end of the prosecutor’s case, the prosecutor agreed that the impaired driving charge should be dismissed due to a lack of evidence. The trial judge dismissed the charge of driving over the legal limit of alcohol. I convinced the judge that the police had infringed the defendant’s right to speak to her counsel of choice and that the infringement was serious enough to justify a dismissal of this charge.
Cory S. – May 26 – The defendant was charged with operating a conveyance with excess blood alcohol (‘Over 80’) as well as impaired operation of a conveyance. The matter was scheduled for trial twice and not reached either time due to the prosecutor giving priority to other scheduled matters. Given the delay issues that had arisen we were able to persuade the prosecutor into accepting a plea to the Highway Traffic Act charge of careless driving. The defendant received a fine and was placed on probation for a year with terms to have no alcohol in his body while driving and to take the Back on Track course. Following the completion of the plea all criminal charges were withdrawn.
Dennis L. – April 29 – After a serious motor vehicle accident, the accused was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm and refusing to provide breath samples. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. I convinced the trial judge that the symptoms of alleged impairment were too weak to convict and that the prosecutor had failed to prove that the accused had ever unequivocally refused to provide breath samples. I also convinced the judge that the constitutional rights of the accused had been infringed in several respects justifying an exclusion of almost all the evidence led by the prosecutor at the trial.
Anthony A. – April 2 – The defendant was charged with refusing to provide breath samples, careless driving and failing to remain after an accident. We were able to convince the judge that the matter had taken too long to get to trial. The judge stayed all three3 charges which is the legal equivalent of a dismissal.
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.
Eric B. – March 18 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit of alcohol. The judge dismissed both charges after a trial. I was able to convince the judge that the evidence of impairment was too weak to convict. I also convinced him that the police infringed the constitutional rights of the defendant at the roadside because of a delay before having him provide a breath sample into a screening device and that the infringement was serious enough to justify a dismissal of that charge, as well.
Jashan G. – March 17 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit of alcohol. The matter went to trial. After my cross-examination of the prosecutor’s witnesses, the prosecutor conceded they could not prove the defendant drove the vehicle in question on this occasion. After the prosecutor invited him to do so, the judge dismissed both charges.
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.
Ming C. Jan 20 – The defendant was charged with operating a conveyance with excess blood alcohol (‘Over 80’). Given the readings that were not greatly in excess of the legal limit we successfully negotiated with the prosecutor for a resolution allowing our client to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of careless driving. The defendant received a fine and a probation order that included a term requiring the use of an ignition interlock device. After the completion of the plea the criminal charge was withdrawn.
