Ashley M. – April 22 – The defendant was charged with driving over the legal limit for alcohol. The matter proceeded to trial. I argued that the police infringed the defendant’s right to counsel at two different junctures during the investigation. Once all the evidence had been led by the prosecutor at trial, he conceded that the evidence did indeed show that the defendant’s right to counsel had been violated by the police. The prosecutor invited the judge to dismiss the charge. The trial judge dismissed the charge.
Sean C. – April 15 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving by drugs. The arresting officer was not available to attend the trial date and there was no indication when the officer would be available in the future. 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. Once the plea was entered the criminal charge was withdrawn.
Michael B. – April 8 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit for alcohol after he caused a motor vehicle accident. His readings were just above the legal limit and although he had a previous conviction for drinking and driving, it was very dated. There was a concern by the prosecution that the matter could not be tried with the time frame required by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (within 18 months of the charges being laid) so 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 where he had to drive with an ignition interlock device in his car. Once the plea was entered both criminal charges were withdrawn.
Shaun J. – March 27 – The defendant was charged with driving over the legal limit for alcohol. The charge was dismissed after trial. I was able to convince the trial judge that the prosecution had not proven the accuracy of the breath readings beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard of proof in all criminal trials.
Kirat S. – March 19 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit for alcohol. On the date set for trial, the matter could not proceed as the arresting officer was testifying in another matter in another jurisdiction. On the second date set for trial the matter could also not be reached because of other matters on the list that had higher priority. Rather than adjourn the matter to a third trial and run the risk that the matter might go beyond the period within which trials are constitutionally-mandated to conclude, the prosecution agreed to a resolution. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of careless driving for a fine and a period of 1 year where he was required to drive with an ignition interlock device in his vehicle. After the defendant pled guilty to careless driving, both criminal charges were withdrawn.
Richard F. – March 18 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit for alcohol. On the date set for trial, the matter could not proceed as the trial judge was ill that day. Rather than adjourn the matter and run the risk that the matter might go beyond the period within which trials are constitutionally-mandated to conclude, the prosecution agreed to a resolution. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal traffic offence of careless driving for a fine and a period of 6 months when his driving privileges were limited to work purposes and some other exceptions. After the defendant pled guilty to careless driving, both criminal charges were withdrawn.
Wayne E. – March 16 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving, driving over the legal limit for alcohol and dangerous driving. The matter proceeded to trial. Partway through the trial, I was able to convince the prosecutor that the only evidence establishing that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question was vulnerable to exclusion based on a constitutional infringement of the defendant’s right to counsel. As a result, the defendant was allowed 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 device in his car for a period of time. Once the defendant was sentenced on the traffic charge, all three criminal charges were withdrawn.
Mazen B. – March 13 – The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample. The matter proceeded to trial. I was able to convince the trial judge that the prosecutor had not proven that a lawful breath demand had been made to the defendant prior to his refusal to provide a breath sample. The trial judge dismissed the charge
Arie G. – March-11 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving above the legal limit for alcohol. The breath readings were only slightly above the legal limit and I was prepared to argue at trial that the defendant’s right to consult with his counsel of choice had been infringed. 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 requirement that he drive with an ignition interlock device in his car for a period of time. Once the defendant was sentenced on the traffic charge, both criminal charges were withdrawn.
Hossein M. – Jan 14 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving, driving over the legal limit of alcohol and failing to remain after an accident, a non-criminal charge under the Highway Traffic Act. I was able to convince the prosecutor that the defendant’s constitutional rights were infringed in many respects which could cause the prosecution serious difficulties in proving the criminal charges. As a result, a resolution was reached whereby the defendant pled guilty to the failing to remain charge. He received a $400 fine with no suspension of his driving privileges. Once the guilty plea was entered to the traffic offence, the two criminal charges were withdrawn.
Samantha L.-Jan 6 – The defendant was charged with driving over the legal limit for alcohol and driving while using a cell phone. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. I convinced the judge that the defendant’s right to be free from unlawful detention and unlawful search or seizure was infringed as the arresting officer did not have sufficient grounds to arrest the defendant in the first place. I also convinced the judge that the infringement was serious enough that it justified the exclusion from evidence of the breath readings (which were above the legal limit). As regards the cell phone charge, the prosecutor neglected to proceed on the charge and ultimately withdrew the charge.
