Angelo R. – November 29th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The defendant was seen seated in the drivers’ seat of his motor vehicle by a police officer. The officer then saw him walking down the street and stopped him to investigate. I advanced a constitutional argument that the defendant’s right to be free from arbitrary detention was infringed by the police officer stopping him while walking on the street. The prosecutor determined that he had no reasonable prospect of conviction. The charge was withdrawn.
Adrian G. – November 13th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Partway through the trial, I was able to convince the prosecutor that he faced some significant difficulties in proving the case against the defendant. Specifically, I pointed out that the evidence would likely fall short of establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant’s blood alcohol level was above the legal limit at the time of driving even though he was above the legal limit at the time he provided breath samples. The prosecutor allowed the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine. The prosecutor then withdrew the criminal charge. As a result, the defendant avoided a criminal record and a licence suspension.
Stephen M. – October 22nd – The defendant was charged with Over 80. He had taken a wrong turn while visiting Buffalo, N.Y. and ended up entering Canada unintentionally. At trial, the Judge accepted the defence argument that the tests were not taken “as soon as practicable”. In other words, that there was an unexplained delay in conducting the breath tests. The charge was dismissed for a lack of evidence.
Ehsan C. – October 18th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. In a rare occurrence, the arresting officer could not be located on the day of trial by the prosecution. As a result, the prosecutor was forced to withdraw the charge against the defendant.
Kyle N. – October 12th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The defendant was youthful and therefore a criminal record would have been devastating to his future. I had served notice on the prosecutor that we would be arguing an infringement of the defendant’s right to counsel. While earlier attempts to resolve the matter were unsuccessful, on the trial date the prosecutor agreed to withdraw the criminal charge and allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The defendant was fined but no licence suspension was imposed on him by the judge. This resolution avoided a criminal record for the defendant.
Emile H. – October 11th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Care or Control of a motor vehicle. The charge was dismissed after a trial. The judge held that the evidence did not establish that the defendant had ever assumed care or control of his vehicle at the relevant time. On this basis, the charge was dismissed.
Vincenzo M. – October 2nd – The defendant was charged with Failing to Provide a Sample into a Roadside Screening Device. The charge was dismissed after a trial. The trial judge made a finding that the evidence of the arresting officer was unreliable on a point crucial to the Crown’s case and as a result, he dismissed the charge.
Ann C. – September 20th – The defendant was charged with Refusal to Provide a Breath Sample. In an unusual fact situation, the “information” (this is the charging document that is before the court and confers jurisdiction on the trial judge to hear the trial) referred to the wrong section of the Criminal Code. The judge did not allow the prosecutor to amend the information. The prosecutor could have remedied the problem but to do so would have allowed the defendant the right to be tried by a judge and jury. Instead, an agreement was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The defendant was required to pay a fine and, for six months, her driving privileges were limited to driving for specific purposes that were agreed to during our negotiations. The criminal charge was withdrawn.
Ryan C. – September 18th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The defendant is a teacher so avoiding a criminal record was crucial to his employment. I notified the Crown of several frailties in their case including time issues, a right to counsel issue and an issue related to the defendant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time. Ultimately, the prosecutor agreed to withdraw the Over 80 charge and allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and no licence suspension. This avoided a criminal record for the defendant.
Kurtis S. – September 11th – The defendant was charged with Refusing to provide a sample into a roadside screening device. The charge was dismissed at the end of the Crown’s case. The judge found that there was no case to answer to. This is called a “non-suit”. The judge accepted my argument that there was no evidence led as to the wording of the demand communicated to the defendant and this was considered to be fatal to the charge.
Bernard J. – September 5th – the defendant was charged with Over 80. The criminal charge was withdrawn. Initially the Crown had intended to have the client prosecuted to the full extent of the law, however once he retained our office and we began to negotiate on his behalf, the Crown agreed to allow the client to plead to “careless driving” under the Highway Traffic Act. Although the option to continue driving with an ignition interlock device was made available to him, the client opted to have his license suspended for a year.
Bojan B. – September 5th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. His breath readings were just over the legal limit. An agreement was reached with the prosecutor to allow him to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. He was required to pay a fine and for 90 days he could only drive for work purposes. This avoided a criminal conviction for the defendant and allowed him to maintain his employment by allowing him to maintain his driving privileges.
Lucas F. – August 29th – The defendant was charged with Over 80 and Careless Driving. Partway through the trial on the criminal charge, the prosecutor and I had discussions about a resolution of the matter based on the evidence that had been tendered that far in the trial. The prosecutor had justifiable concerns that she would not be able to prove that the defendant was the operator of a vehicle that was involved in an accident. We came to an agreement whereby the defendant would plead guilty to the Careless Driving charge and she would not proceed any further on the Over 80 charge. He was required to pay a fine and for 6 months could only operate his motor vehicle for work purposes. The defendant was a young man and so the avoidance of a criminal conviction was of paramount importance to him.
Kenny N. – August 29th – The defendant was charged with Refusing to provide a breath sample into a roadside screening device. The charge was dismissed after trial. The judge concluded that the Crown had not proven that the arresting officer had the lawful grounds to make a demand in the first place. The judge ruled that there is no offence committed when one refuses an unlawful demand.
Tom M. – August 22nd – The defendant was charged with Impaired, Over and Assault Police. The prosecutor agreed that there was a risk that the Crown would not be able to prove the identity of the defendant as the driver. As a result, the prosecutor and I agreed on a resolution whereby all three criminal charges were withdrawn and instead the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. He was also put on a probation order which limited his driving privileges to driving for work purposes and for purposes related to his children. This limitation was agreed to last for 9 months. As a result, the defendant avoided a criminal conviction and was allowed to continue to drive for the purposes for which he needed to drive.
Kelly A. – August 21st – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. I served a motion on the Crown in advance of the trial which included an argument that her constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure had been infringed in this case. I was able to persuade the prosecutor that my argument had a genuine chance of succeeding. As a result, the prosecutor agreed to withdraw the criminal charges and instead, my client pled guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. For 3 months she was only allowed to drive for work purposes. She also had to pay a fine. This resolution avoided a criminal record for her which was quite important because of her young age.
Amanda G. – August 8th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. I served a constitutional argument on the prosecution well in advance of the trial. The prosecutor contacted me and conceded that there were arguable points to be made for the defence. As a result, an agreement was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. She received a fine and it was agreed that she would install an ignition interlock device in her car for 9 months. The Over 80 charge was withdrawn. As a result, the defendant was able to avoid a criminal record and was allowed to continue driving without interruption.
Francois J. – July 25th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Over 80 and Public Mischief. All charges were dismissed after trial. the trial judge ruled that the breathalyzer readings ought to be excluded from evidence based on several infringements of the defendant’s constitutional rights including his right to counsel and his right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure. The trial judge went on to rule that the evidence led at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was Impaired at the time of driving. Finally, the judge ruled that the Crown had not proven that the defendant was guilty of the Public Mischief charge and that count was dismissed as well.
Bonnie M. – July 17th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Refuse to Provide a Breath Sample and Driving while Disqualified. The Crown could not proceed to trial as the witnesses that were required to prove the charges did not attend court. All charges were withdrawn.
Glen H. – July 11th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The Crown could not proceed with the trial as the witnesses required to prove the case did not attend court. The charge was withdrawn.
Andrew L. – June 25th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. A Crown witness testified that the defendant lost control of his car and collided with a stationary object, causing thousands of dollars in damage to property. At the conclusion of the Crown’s case, and following cross-examination of the police witnesses, the Crown chose to withdraw the Over 80 charge in light of several manifest breaches of the defendant’s constitutional rights. The case then proceeded to judgment and the defendant was acquitted of Impaired Driving as well. This case represents an instance where Crown policy against meaningful plea negotiations resulted in total victory for the defence and is an object lesson in why our clients rarely plead guilty to a DUI charge.
Clark H. – June 21st – The defendant was charged with Over 80 and a Provincial Offence. The Judge dismissed both charges after a trial. I convinced the Judge that the arresting officer did not have legal grounds to pull over the defendant’s vehicle when he was initially investigated. As a result of this finding, the Judge excluded all evidence obtained thereafter which included the breathalyzer readings.
M.R. – June 12th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Negotiations on the day of trial resulted in the Crown withdrawing the criminal charge and in exchange the defendant pled guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. With this result the client was able to retain her driver’s licence and avoid a criminal record.
Terry M. – June 12th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Although the alleged readings were almost three times the legal limit, I was able to persuade the Judge that the matter had taken too long to get to trial. All charges against the defendant were stayed, which is the equivalent of a dismissal. This is a good example of a case where even seemingly hopeless facts can still have a positive outcome.
Matthew W. – June 11th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. In a very rare occurrence, the officers who investigated this matter did not attend court and could not be found by the prosecutor during the course of the day. As a result, the prosecutor could not proceed with the case. The charge was withdrawn.
Bryce B. – June 7th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. The trial judge agreed with my argument that the prosecutor had not led sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s ability to operate his motor vehicle was impaired. On this basis the trial judge dismissed this charge. The trial judge also agreed with my argument that the second breathalyzer test was not taken in a timely fashion. This was sufficient to warrant a dismissal on the Over 80 charge, as well.
Daniel R. – June 4th – The defendant was charged with Fail to Stop after an accident. The charge was dismissed after a trial. The trial judge agreed with my argument that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew he had been involved in an accident before he left the scene. On that basis, the trial judge dismissed the charge.
Philip V. – May 18th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. The judge accepted my argument that the evidence led regarding impairment was insufficient to prove the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge also accepted both arguments I made regarding the Over 80 charge. Specifically, the judge agreed that the prosecutor had failed to lead evidence that the breath tests were taken in a timely fashion. She also agreed that the officer who did the breathalyzer test erred in his testimony regarding what readings were actually conveyed by the breathalyzer. In other words, the judge found that there was reasonable doubt based on the officer’s evidence as to whether the defendant’s breath readings were, in fact, above the legal limit. As a result, both charges were marked as dismissed.
Daniel P. – May 15th – The defendant wash charged with Over 80. The matter had begun on a previous day. All the evidence was led and I concluded my submissions. The case was adjourned for the purposes of allowing the Crown to make his reply submissions. Prior to making his submissions, the prosecutor contacted me and was prepared to offer a resolution whereby he would not proceed with the Over 80 charge and instead, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. He was put on probation for nine months the first six of which he was only allowed to drive for work purposes. This resolution allowed the defendant to continue working and it also avoided a criminal record for him. The prosecutor agreed to this resolution because of concerns he had regarding technical defences that I raised during my closing submissions.
Brooke O. – May 11th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after a trial. The judge accepted my argument that the defendant’s right to consult with her counsel of choice had been infringed. Although the officer maintained that she attempted to contact this lawyer, the lawyer testified at trial and produced evidence that no such call was made. The judge found this to be a serious infringement of the defendant’s rights and consequently dismissed the charge.
Michael S. – May 7th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Over 80 and Assault Police. The defendant was observed at a fast food drive thru by staff who called the police believing the defendant was impaired. Police attended at the defendant’s residence and had dealings with him in his backyard. The defendant then entered his residence and was followed by police who arrested the defendant for Impaired Driving at which point a scuffle ensued between the defendant and several police officers. I served a constitutional application on the prosecution alleging that police had no grounds to enter the defendant’s residence. After lengthy negotiations with the prosecution, a resolution was worked out whereby both the Impaired and Over 80 charges were withdrawn by the Crown. The Crown further agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to simple Assault rather than Assault Police for which he received a conditional discharge which is not considered a criminal conviction in law.
Craig M. – May 4th – The defendant was charged with Over 80, one of two possible DUI charges. All criminal charges were withdrawn. The trial began and proceeded halfway through the testimony of the Crown’s first witness. After extensive off-the-record discussions with the prosecutor and the police, a senior prosecutor approved a deal whereby the client pled guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. As a result the client was not saddled with a criminal record.
Peter M. – April 30th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Care or Control of a motor vehicle, Over 80 Care or Control of a motor vehicle and Breach of Undertaking. The judge dismissed the Impaired and Over 80 charges after a trial. The judge accepted that the defendant was impaired when observed by the police. However, the police observed the defendant in his motor vehicle after a single motor vehicle accident. The judge was satisfied that the defendant had no intention of driving the vehicle any further nor was there a risk that the vehicle could be set in motion because the vehicle had become immovable as a result of the accident. Since there was no danger posed by the defendant being in his vehicle at that time, the judge found that the prosecution had not proven its case and, as a result, he dismissed both charges. After making this finding, the prosecutor withdrew the Breach charge.
Stephen S. – April 13th – The defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving. The evidence the prosecution would have relied upon at trial was, for the most part, excessive speed by the defendant. After protracted negotiations with the prosecution, a resolution was worked out whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and no suspension of his driving privileges. The Dangerous Driving charge was withdrawn. This resolution avoided a criminal conviction for the defendant.
Julian A. – April 4th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Prior to trial, I served a constitutional application on the prosecution alleging several breaches of the defendant’s rights in respect of this investigation. This included an allegation that the police lacked sufficient grounds to arrest the defendant and further that the defendant’s right to consult with counsel of choice was infringed. The trial proceeded for a full day and had to be adjourned to a second day for trial. Prior to the return date, the prosecution offered to withdraw the Over 80 charge if the defendant was willing to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and no licences suspension. The defendant accepted this offer and thereby avoided a criminal record.
Christine L. – April 4th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after trial. There was conflicting evidence between the arresting officer and the breathalyzer technician as to the time the first breath test was taken. This conflict raised a doubt in the judge’s mind as to whether there was at least 15 minutes separating the taking of the first and second breath samples which is a requirement set out in the Criminal Code.
Tyler F. – April 2nd – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. This case involved a serious motor vehicle accident where the defendant was injured and blood samples were taken from him rather than breath samples. Prior to the trial date, I had served a Constitutional argument on the prosecution alleging several violations of my client’s Constitutional rights related to the seizure of the blood. Ultimately, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and no suspension of his driving privileges. This allowed the young defendant to avoid being saddled with a criminal record. The Impaired Driving and Over 80 charges were withdrawn.
Dale C. – March 27th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was originally dismissed on an extremely technical issue related to the sufficiency of the charging document. The prosecution challenged this finding before another judge and succeeded in having the matter brought before the trial court a second time. However, rather than proceeding a second time on the Over 80 charge, the prosecution allowed the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and no suspension of the defendant’s driving privileges and avoided a criminal record.
Joey P. – March 21st – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after a trial. The trial judge agreed with my argument that the prosecution had not proven that the breathalyzer tests were taken “as soon as practicable” a requirement under the Criminal Code.
Shawyne Y. – Feb 27th – The defendant was charged with Refuse Breath Sample, a common DUI charge variant. The charge was dismissed by the trial judge at the end of the trial. Following defence cross-examination of the arresting officer, it became clear that the officer had failed to record several instances where the client not only could have provided a suitable sample, but provided a sample that registered a “pass” result. The trial judge was left with no alternative but to acquit.
Grant D. – Feb. 27th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. The judge dismissed the Over 80 charge as he found there was no evidence that the officer had made a lawful breath demand to the defendant upon his arrest. The judge dismissed the Impaired Driving charge as he found that while there was some evidence supporting the Crown’s position that the defendant was impaired at the time of driving, there was other evidence that would suggest the opposite. As a result, the judge found that he had a reasonable doubt and dismissed this charge as well.
Dwight P. – Feb. 17th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. I was able to persuade the Crown that there was evidence the police had infringed the defendant’s right to counsel at the roadside prior to bringing him to the police station for breath tests. As a result, the Crown allowed the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and no suspension. The criminal charges were then withdrawn thus avoiding a criminal record for the defendant.
Brandon C. – Feb 14th – The defendant was charged with Refuse Breath Sample, a common DUI charge variant. The charge was dismissed by the trial judge at the end of the trial. The Judge found that the officer who charged our client did not have the legal authority to demand he blow into a screening device, the smaller roadside machine. The officer equivocated and his evidence left the Judge with a reasonable doubt that the officer suspected our client had alcohol in his body while he drove.
Andrew C. – Feb. 9th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Care or Control of a motor vehicle and Over 80 Care or Control of a motor vehicle. The police had come upon the scene after the defendant had put his vehicle into a ditch in the middle of winter. The Crown would have had difficulty proving the case because there was evidence of the defendant consuming alcohol after he was no longer driving the vehicle. As a result, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the minor Highway Traffic Act offence of Failing to Drive in a Marked Lane as well as the Liquor Licence offence of Having Liquor Readily Available in a Motor Vehicle. He received fines for these two offences and no licence suspension. The criminal charges were withdrawn thus avoiding a criminal record for the defendant.
Jamie S. – Feb. 8th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. I was able to persuade the Crown that they may have difficulty proving their case because of a reasonably lengthy delay that occurred prior to the police administering the roadside test. The Crown agreed to withdraw the Over 80 charge and instead allowed the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant was put on a 6 month Provincial Offences probation order where he could operate his motor vehicle for work purposes only. After the expiration of the 6 months, this limitation on his driving privileges would come to an end. As a result, the defendant avoided a criminal conviction and was allowed to keep his employment which required him to maintain his ability to drive.
William W. – Feb. 7th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The trial commenced in 2011 and was to continue on this date. The prosecutor recognized difficulties in his case primarily because the readings were not taken in a timely manner after the occurrence of a motor vehicle accident involving the defendant. As a result, the prosecutor offered a resolution whereby the Over 80 charge was withdrawn and the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine with no suspension. The defendant accepted this resolution as it allowed him to avoid a criminal conviction and maintain his driving privileges.
Mario L. – Jan. 20th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed by the trial judge at the end of the trial. In an unusual fact situation, the trial judge found that the prosecution had not proven that the certificate of the breath readings had been prepared exclusively by the breathalyzer technician as some uninitialed amendments had been made to the certificate and not accounted for in the evidence. This is a good example of a case where a very technical issue can often carry the day for the defence.
Richard S. – Jan. 16th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The Crown was concerned about a number of problems with their case including time issues related to the taking of the breath samples as well as the length of time the matter had taken to get to trial. Indeed, we were prepared to argue that the defendant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed in this case. Because of the prosecutor’s concerns, an offer was made to the defendant allowing him to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and no driving suspension and the Over 80 charge was withdrawn. The defendant accepted this offer as it allowed him to avoid a criminal conviction and maintain his driving privileges.
S.S. – Jan. 13th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The trial commenced in 2011 and was to continue on this date. Prior to the continuation date, the Crown offered a resolution whereby they would withdraw the Over 80 charge and allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. This offer was accepted by the defendant as it allowed him to avoid a criminal conviction and also allowed him to maintain his driving privileges. The Crown made the offer because of concerns they had about whether they would be able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt as a result of certain technical frailties in their case.
Mark W. – Jan. 5th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed by the judge at the end of the trial. The trial judge held that the prosecutor had not proven that the breath tests were taken “as soon as practicable”, a necessary prerequisite to an Over 80 charge.
Stephen B. – Jan. 4th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Over 80 and the Highway Traffic Act offence of Driving while Suspended. All charges were dismissed. The Over 80 charge was dismissed as the prosecutor failed to lead evidence of a lawful breath demand having been made to the defendant. The Impaired Driving count was dismissed as the judge was left with a reasonable doubt as to whether all the evidence of the police established that the defendant was, in fact, impaired while driving. The Drive while Suspended charge was dismissed as the prosecutor could not prove that the defendant had knowledge that he was suspended at the time of driving, a necessary prerequisite to the charge.
