Payind N. – Dec 15 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit for alcohol. The prosecutor withdrew both charges on the trial date as the only witness who could testify that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question was reluctant to testify as she knew the defendant and the prosecutor chose not to force her to testify.
Ronald E. – Dec 12 – The defendant was charged with driving over the legal limit of alcohol. On the trial date, the matter could not proceed because of other matters on the list that took priority. Because of concerns the prosecution had as to whether the matter could be dealt with in a timeframe that complied with time requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a resolution was reached. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the traffic offence of careless driving for a fine and a period of time where he would have to operate a motor vehicle with an ignition interlock device. Once the defendant entered his guilty plea to careless driving, the criminal charge was withdrawn.
James B. – Dec. 10 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm and driving over the legal limit for alcohol. This case involved an accident between two snowmobiles which included injuries to the passenger of the snowmobile operated by the defendant. The breath readings were only slightly above the legal limit and I had served a written constitutional argument on the prosecutor alleging several infringements of the accused’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ultimately, the prosecutor agreed to a resolution whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of Careless Driving for a fine and no suspension of his driving privileges. Once the defendant entered his plea to the traffic offence, the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charges.
Matthew W. Dec. 8 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit of alcohol. The defendant’s readings were only slightly above the legal limit and he had no criminal history before the courts. 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 no suspension of his driving privileges. Once he entered his plea to careless driving, the criminal charges were withdrawn.
Bishal G. – Nov. 26 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit of alcohol. On the trial date, the prosecutor determined he would not be able to prove either charge. As a result, the prosecutor requested that both charges be withdrawn.
James A. – Nov 7 – The defendant was charged with refusing to blow into a roadside breath testing device. By the time the matter was set down for trial, the prosecution ran the risk that the charge might be thrown out for violating the defendant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time. As a result, I was able to reach a resolution with the prosecutor. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a requirement that the defendant drive with an ignition interlock device in his care for a period of time. Once the defendant entered his guilty plea to the traffic offense, the criminal charge was withdrawn.
Gurjit N. – Oct 29 – The defendant was charged with driving over the legal limit of alcohol. The charge was dismissed by the judge after a trial. I was able to convince the judge that the defendant’s right to counsel was infringed to such a degree that it justified the exclusion of the breath readings from evidence. Without the breath readings, there was no other evidence available to the prosecution to prove the alleged offence. As a result, the trial judge dismissed the charge.
Cole D. – Oct 28 – The defendant was charged with driving over the Legal limit of alcohol. Although the trial had previously started, the matter could not finish. Thereafter, the matter had to be adjourned on a few more occasions for various reasons. Eventually, I was able to convince the prosecutor that there was a genuine likelihood the matter could be thrown out for violating the defendant’s right under the Charter of Rights to be tried within a reasonable time. As a result, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic charge of careless driving for a fine and a period of time wherein he could only drive with an ignition interlock in his car. This resolution was welcome news for the defendant as he was in his twemties and a criminal record would have haunted him in his life going forward. Once the plea to careless driving was entered by the defendant, the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge.
Dorel P. – Oct. 27 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit of alcohol. Both charges were dismissed by the judge after a trial. Even though the breath readings were more than three times the legal limit, I was able to convince the trial judge that the police infringed the defendant’s right to counsel and that the infringement was serious enough to justify the suppression of the breath readings. I also convinced the judge that the remaining evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt on the impaired driving charge. This was a welcome outcome for the defendant who would have faced the possibility of removal from the country because of the effect a conviction would have had on his immigration status as he was not a citizen.
Kedane A. – Oct 6 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving, driving over the legal limit of alcohol and failing to stop after an accident. I was able to convince the prosecutor that there were several problems with her case including several arguable infringements of the defendant’s constitutional rights and a potential lack of evidence that the defendant drove the vehicle involved in the accident that was the subject of these charges. As a result, 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. After the defendant entered his guilty plea to the traffic offence, all criminal charges were withdrawn.
Corey W. – September 26 – The defendant was charged with driving over the legal limit of alcohol. I was able to convince the prosecutor that there was a strong defence related to the police officer’s grounds for arresting the defendant before he was taken to the police station to provide breath samples. As a result, a resolution was reached. T he defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of careless driving. He was required to pay a fine and to agree to drive for a period of time with an ignition interlock device installed in his vehicle. After the defendant pled guilty to careless driving, the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge.
Sumaita P. – September 4 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit of alcohol. After all the evidence had been presented, I was able to convince the prosecutor that she could not prove either charge. I convinced her that the evidence of impairment was far from sufficient to prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard of proof required before a judge can convict. I also convinced her that the evidence revealed an infringement of the defendant’s right to counsel that was so serious that it had to result in an exclusion of the breathalyzer results. The prosecutor invited the judge to dismiss both charges at which time the judge dismissed both charges.
Jodie B. – September 2 – The defendant was charged with driving over the legal limit of alcohol. The charge was dismissed after a trial. I was able to convince the judge that the prosecution had failed to prove that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle that caused an accident on the road. So even though she blew above the legal limit, the trial judge dismissed the charge.
Jolly E.- August 18 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving, driving over the legal limit of alcohol and failing to stop after an accident. After a trial, the impaired driving charge and the driving over the legal limit of alcohol were both dismissed. I convinced the judge that the document relied upon by the prosecution to prove the over the limit charge was fatally flawed. I also convinced the judge that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution to prove the impaired driving charge was insufficient to convict. Although the defendant was found guilty of failing to remain after an accident, I was able to persuade the judge not to impose a sentence that would saddle the defendant with a criminal conviction. This was important for the defendant because he was not a Canadian citizen and a criminal conviction would have left him vulnerable to removal from the country.
Jonathan M. – August 12 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit of alcohol. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. I was able to convince the judge that the prosecution had not proven that, prior to trial, they had properly served the documentation it was relying upon to prove the over the limit charge which is necessary for the prosecution to be able to rely upon the documentation to prove the charge. I was also able to convince the judge that the evidence on the impaired driving charge was insufficient for a finding of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard required before a conviction can be entered.
Jada B. – August 6 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit of alcohol. The alleged breath readings were at the low end and the defendant had no previous involvement in the criminal justice system. As a result of this, a resolution was reached. T he defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of careless driving. The defendant had to pay a fine and was required to drive with an ignition interlock device in their vehicle for a period of time. Once the plea to careless driving was complete, the prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.
Reuben S. – August 6 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit of alcohol. I was able to convince the prosecutor that there was a strong defence related to the police officer’s grounds for arresting the defendant before he was taken to the police station to provide breath samples. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of careless driving. The defendant had to pay a fine and was required to drive with an ignition interlock device in their vehicle for a period of time. Once the plea to careless driving was complete, the prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.
Mackenzie H. – July 16 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit of alcohol. Both charges were dismissed. After all the evidence was tendered by the prosecutor at trial but before legal submissions were to begin, I spoke to the prosecutor. I was able to convince him that he had not proven either charge. I convinced him that the evidence of impairment was far from sufficient to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard of proof required before a judge can convict. I also convinced him that the breathalyzer technician (the police officer who is responsible for obtaining breath samples from an arrested person) had made an error on the documentation required to prove the charge and that this error could not be overcome. The prosecutor agreed and invited the judge to dismiss both charges and the trial judge did so.
Garrett W. – July 11 – The defendant was charged with driving over the legal limit of alcohol. I was able to convince the prosecutor that there was a strong defence based on whether the initial detention of the defendant on the roadway was lawful. As a result, a resolution was reached. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of careless driving for a fine and a period of time wherein he was required to install an ignition interlock in his vehicle. Once he entered his plea to careless driving the over the limit charge was withdrawn.
Kathleen P. – July 10 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit of alcohol. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. The over the limit charge was dismissed as I was able to convince the judge that the defendant’s right to counsel had been violated by the police and that the violation was serious enough to justify exclusion of the breathalyzer tests. I was also able to convince the judge that the evidence on the impaired driving charge was insufficient for a finding of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard required before a conviction can be entered.
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.
