Ryan G. – Dec. 18 The defendant was charged with over 80. The charge was dismissed after a trial. The trial judge accepted my argument that the prosecution had not proven that the defendant was, in fact, the driver of a motor vehicle that have been involved in an accident. Thus, even though the defendant eventually provided breath samples above the legal limit, the charge was dismissed.

Chris U. – Dec 18 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. Our client was acquitted following trial. We demonstrated the police had not respected our client’s right to speak with a lawyer upon his arrest. As a consequence the prosecutor was prohibited from using the breathalyzer readings against our client and he was acquitted.

David R. – Dec 16 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The prosecutor agreed to withdraw the charge and allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving on account of low readings – 100/80 and 90/80 – as well as our client’s background.

Bonnie W. – Dec. 9 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after a trial. I argued that the breathalyzer readings were tendered in evidence by use of hearsay, which is generally considered inadmissible in law. The judge agreed and the charge was dismissed.

Richard M. – Dec. 3 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. On cross-examination of the police witnesses, I was able to get them to concede that they did not use the roadside screening device properly. As a result, the Prosecutor invited the trial Judge to dismiss the charge and at which time the Judge dismissed the charge.

Paul M. – Nov. 12 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was stayed, which is equivalent to a dismissal of the charge. I argued that his detention in custody after the conclusion of the police investigation infringed the defendant’s right to be free from arbitrary detention. I further argued that this infringement justified a stay of proceedings. The judge agreed and stayed proceedings.

Ronald G. – Nov. 4 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. After cross-examination of the arresting officer, the prosecutor had some concerns about his ability to obtain a conviction on either count. As a result, a resolution was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. Although this resolution included a suspension of his driving privileges for 18 months, it avoided a criminal record for the defendant which would have been fatal to his employment. Once he entered his plea to the Careless Driving charge, the prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.

Mario D. – October 25 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after a trial. I convinced the trial judge that several constitutional rights of the defendant had been infringed during the course of the police investigation. I also convinced the judge that the said infringements were serious enough to justify the exclusion of the breath readings from evidence. This resulted in the dismissal of the charge.

Kirk B. – Oct. 22nd – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. Despite the police having laid the charge, and the court process having begun, the prosecutor agreed very early on to withdraw the charges and allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. During our discussions we were able to show the prosecutor our client may have been under the legal limit while driving and then rose over the legal limit while in police custody, a so-called “straddle” defence. A very rare set of circumstances.

Paul T. – October 18 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. During the course of the trial, the officer’s evidence raised the possibility that he had not used the roadside screening device in a proper manner. Rather than chance an outright acquittal, the prosecutor agreed to withdraw the charge and allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. He was fined and his driving privileges were limited for nine months but he was able to continue driving for work purposes. As a result he was able to save his job and avoid a criminal record.

Latchman D. – October 17 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The charges were dismissed after trial. The trial judge accepted my argument that the prosecutor had failed to prove that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the defendant and demand breath samples from him. I also convinced the trial judge that the breach was serious enough to justify the exclusion of the breath readings from evidence which resulted in the dismissal of the Over 80 charge. The trial judge also ruled that there was insufficient evidence to convict the defendant on the impaired driving charge.

Quenton H. – October 11 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. I convinced the trial judge that the prosecutor had failed to prove the arreseting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the defendant for impaired driving and demand breath samples from him. The trial judge ruled that the arresting officer did not tender credible evidence to the court. As a result, the breath readings were excluded from evidence which led to the dismissal of the Over 80 charge. I also convinced the trial jduge that there was a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was impaired while driving.

Jeffrey F. – Oct 7th – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Following a hotly contested trial our client was acquitted of the charge . We raised many issues in order to make an otherwise simple trial a complex one. The prosecutor made a poor decision in what became a long trial and we were able to capitalize.

Jaswant B. – October 3 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. As a result ofthe police failing to maintain the breath testing instrument properly, I was able to persuade the prosecutor that their chance of obtaining a conviction has been compromised. As a result, the prosecutor withdrew the charge and allowed the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and no suspension of his driving privileges.

Stephen L. – October 2 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. At an early stage in the proceedings, we were able to convince the prosecutor that the prospect of conviction was weak because of time issues related to the allegation. The prosecutor agreed to withdraw the charge and allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine. As a result, the defendant was able to avoid a criminal record and a lengthy suspension of his driving privileges.

Matthew V. – September 24 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. It became apparent on the day of trial that theCrown could not prove the Over 80 charge because documents had been misplaced and a police witness did not attend court. The Crown has a reasonably strong case against our client for Impaired Driving but eventually agreed to withdarw the criminal charges and accept a plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. The end result was a fine and demerit points but no criminal recod and no loss of driving privileges. This kind of outcome only occurs with a trial-ready lawyer there to fight the case on the day of trial.

Adrian S. – September 13 – The defandant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. The prosecutor had concerns that they would be able to prove the identity of the defendant as the driver. As a result, a resolution was reached whereby the two criminal charges were withdrawn and the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving . The defendant was put on a term of probation where, for 1 year, he could only drive for work purposes. As a result of this resolution, the young defendant avoided a criminal record and also was able to maintain his job which required him to be able to drive in order to fulfill his duties.

Milorad A. – September 10 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. The Over 80 charge was dismissed as the prosecutor conceded partway through the trial that the defendant’s right to counsel had been infringed and that the infringement was serious enough to justify an exclusion of the breath readings. The Impaired Driving charge was dismissed as the trial judge ruled that the Crown’s evidence was not strong enough to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt which is the standard the Crown must meet in order to obtain a conviction.

Andrew H. – September 3 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after a trial. The trial judge ruled that the defendant’s right to counsel had been infringed and that the infringement was serious enough that it justified the exclusion from evidence of the breath readings.

Kyle D. – August 30 – The defendant has originally been charged with Refusing to provide a sample into a breathalyzer. He was convicted at trial. The decision was appealed and a new trial was ordered. Rather than go through a trial again, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge if the defendant plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The defendant had to pay a fine and was put on probation where his driving privileges were limited to work and school purposes for a period of one year. This resolution avoided a criminal record for the defendant.

G.A. – August 30 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Once all the evidence was in and we were about to commence legal argument, the Crown requested to meet with me in private. As a result of concerns he had about the strength of his case on both counts, he agreed to a resolution whereby both criminal charges were dismissed and the defendant was allowed, instead, to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The defendant had to pay a fine and was put on a probation order which included a six month period where he could not drive for the first three months and could drive for work purposes only for the second three months. Once the six months were up, his driving privileges would be fully restored. This resolution allowed the defendant to avoid a criminal record and to save his job in the process.

Tara R. – August 15 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. I had served notice of a constitutional issue prior to trial related to the officer’s grounds for arresting the defendant. Just prior to the trial date, the prosecutor, no doubt concerned about the viability of this argument, offered a resolution whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic act for a fine. The criminal charges were withdrawn. As a result, the defendant avoided a criminal record and any loss of driving privileges.

Mohamed A. – August 13 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. Once all the evidence was in and legal argument was made, the judge requested further submissions on a particular point that had been argued. The matter was set to continue on another day for that purpose. Before that date, further discussions were held with the prosecutor and rather than continue the trial, an agreement was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine. The Impaired and Over 80 charges were withdrawn. As a result, the defendant was able to avoid a criminal record and any loss of driving privileges.

David B. – July 25 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after a trial. The trial judge ruled that the breathalyzer tests were not taken “as soon as practicable”, a prerequisite set out in the Criminal Code.

Jeremy L. – July 11 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after a trial. The trial judge ruled that the breathalyzer tests were not taken “as soon as practicable”, a prerequisite set out in the Criminal Code.

Krista E. – July 3 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Her breath readings were just slightly above the legal limit. the Prosecutor agreed to a resolution whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a period of probation and she was only allowed to drive for limited purposes for a limited time. Once this plea was entered, the criminal charge was withdrawn.

Gregory I. – July 2 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Prior to trial, I served a constitutional argument on the Crown arguing that the defendant’s right to counsel had been infringed. Prior to trial, the Crown agreed to withdraw the criminal charge. Instead, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and no suspension of his driver’s licence. This resolution also avoided a criminal record for the defendant.

Jude M. – June 26 The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after a trial. I was able to convince the trial judge that the documentation relating to the charge was inadequate. This argument alone was sufficient to have the Over 80 charge thrown out.

Parham H. June 24 – The defendant was charged with Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample into a screening device. The charge was dismissed after a trial. I was able to convince the trial judge that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s failure to provide a proper sample was intentional.

Scott W. – June 20 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The prosecutor had concerns that I may be able to succeed on a right to counsel argument that I had put before the Court. As a result, she made an offer to my client which he accepted. Specifically, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and no suspension of his driving privileges. Upon his plea to the Highway Traffic act offence, the criminal charge was withdrawn.

Daniel T. – June 19 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. It was crucial for him to avoid a criminal record as his career as an engineer was depending on it. One of the police witnesses did not attend court that day because of illness. Although it was likely the Crown could have obtained an adjournment from the Court, I was able to persuade her to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. It was agreed that he would pay a fine and be suspended from driving for 1 year. However, this resolution avoided a criminal record for the defendant and thereby saved his career. The Over 80 charge was withdrawn.

Chumandat M. – June 19 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. His readings were just slightly above the legal limit and he had no previous criminal record. Early in the proceedings, we reached an agreement with the prosecution whereby the criminal charge was withdrawn. In its stead, the defendand pled guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and a brief suspension.

Max P. – June 14 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after a trial. I was able to convince the trial judge that the Crown’s case was lacking in two respects. First, the Crown had not proven that the breath tests were taken “as soon as is practicable”, a requirement in the Criminal Code. Second, I was able to convince the trial judge that there was insufficient evidence that paperwork that was required to be served on the defendant prior to trial was actually served.

Jason G. – June 10 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The defendant had readings that were just above the legal limit. He was a young male who had no previous cirminal convictions. Prior to trial, the Prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. His driver’s licence was suspended for 4 months and he received a fine. The criminal charge was withdrawn and thus the defendant was able to avoid a criminal record.

Baldev M. – May 31 – The defendant was charged Over 80. The charge was dismissed after a trial. I was able to persuade the trial judge that the Prosecution had not proven the defendant was driving a motor vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.

Nicholas B. – May 24 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. I was able to persuade the judge that the matter had taken too long to get to trial. The charge was stayed which is the equivalent of a dismissal.

Katherine K. – May 22 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed by the judge after a trial. I persuaded the trial judge that her rights had been infringed in two respects. First, the officer lacked grounds to arrest her. Second, the officer infringed her right to counsel. Based on these two breaches, the judge decided to dismiss the charge.

D. P. – May 8 – The defendant was charged with both Impaired Driving and Over 80. I was able to convince the Prosecutor that he would have difficulty proving that the defendant was driving his motor vehicle at the time in question. The Prosecutor agreed to withdraw both charges in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty to the Highway Traffic Act charge of Careless Driving. He received a fine and a period of probation where he could drive for limited purposes including work and school. The defendant was a PHD candidate, so avoiding the criminal record was extremely important to him.

Taha U. – May 7 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. During the trial, several cracks started forming in the Crown’s case including evidence of a video that had not been disclosed to the defence and some strong suggestion that the defendant’s constitutional rights had been infringed. Instead of risking an outright dismissal of the charge, the Prosecutor agreed to a resolution whereby the Over 80 charge was dismissed in exchange for the Defendant pleading guilty to the Highway Traffic Act charge of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine but no licence suspension and no criminal record.

Dianand B. – April 26 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after trial. The trial judge ruled I had successfully argued that a reasonable doubt existed regarding whether the defendant was above the legal limit of alcohol at the time he was driving (even though he did blow over the legal limit at the police station).

Ryan D. – April 23 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after trial. The trial judge ruled I had successfully argued that a reasonable doubt existed regarding the proper functioning of the breathalyzer. He also ruled that I established an infringement of the defendant’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure which justified the exclusion of the breath readings in any event.

Frank S. – April 22 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. I argued at trial that the arresting officer failed to take the necessary steps to ensure that the roadside breathalyzer would render a reliable result. In a not-so-subtle admonition to the Prosecutor, the trial judge suggested a deal be struck. The Prosecutor agreed to withdraw the charge upon the defendant entering a guilty plea to the Highway Traffic Act charge of Careless Driving. He was required to pay a fine but did not lose his licence nor did he leave the court with a criminal record.

Kenneth Z. – April 9 – The defendant was charged with the criminal charge of Dangerous Driving. The facts included evidence that the defendant had consumed some alcohol and was driving in an extremely erratic manner. After lengthy negotiations, the prosecutor eventually allowed the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for fine and a brief 30 day suspension. The criminal charge was then withdrawn.

William R. – April 9 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The trial judge dismissed the charge at the end of the trial. The trial judge ruled that the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the breath tests were taken “as soon as practicable”, a statutory prerequisite to the prosecution relying upon the breath readings as evidence of the defendants blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving.

Chris M. – April 5 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Prior to trial, I served the constitutional motion on the crown arguing that the defendant’s right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure was infringed in this case. Prior to trial, the prosecutor offered a resolution allowing the defendants plead guilty to the offence of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and a period of probation during which. He could drive for work purposes only. The defendant agreed to this resolution. After entering his plea to careless driving, the prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges against him.

Gordon B. – March 26 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Midway through the trial the Crown agreed to accept a plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act in light of questions regarding the identity of the driver. The defendant was allowed to drive for work purposes only for 1 month and thereafter with an ignition interlock in his vehicle for 11 months. The criminal charge was withdrawn.

Joszef B. – March 19 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Prior to the trial, I served a constitutional motion on the crown arguing that the defendants right to counsel had been infringed. Prior to the commencement of the trial, the prosecutor offered the defendant a resolution allowing him to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine. The defendant agreed to this resolution. The prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges against the defendant.

Clark H. – March 4 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. During the trial, The breathalyzer technician was cross examined at length about the functioning of the breathalyzer instrument. During a break in proceedings, the prosecutor offered the defendant a resolution allowing him to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and a period of probation where the defendant could drive for work purposes only. The defendant agreed to this resolution. As a result of this agreement, the prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges against him.

Jason K – Feb 15th – The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample into a screening device. At the end of the case for the Crown, I argued that the charge should be stayed (which is equivalent to a dismissal) because the arresting officer had destroyed some notes that were made during the course of his investigation. I argued that the destruction of the notes prevented me from being able to make full answer and defense for the defendant. The judge agreed with this argument. The charge was stayed.

Andre D. – Jan. 21st – The defendant was charged with Over 80. At the end of the trial, I made three separate arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence led by the prosecution. The arguments included the fact that the prosecution did not lead evidence of the wording of the breathalyzer demand, that there was a malfunction in the operation of the breathalyzer and that the arresting officer had not used the roadside screening device properly. After a brief recess, the prosecutor invited the judge to dismiss the charge. The judge accepted the invitation and dismissed the charge.

Arla G. – Jan 18th – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Dangerous Driving and Over 80. During the trial, I cross-examined the arresting officer extensively regarding his reasonable and probable grounds for arresting the defendant. When his evidence had concluded, the prosecutor offered the defendant a resolution whereby she was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a 90 day suspension of her driving privileges. The defendant agreed to this resolution as it allowed her to avoid a criminal record. Once she pled guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence, the three criminal charges were dismissed.

Kevin A. – Jan 7th – The defendant was only charged with Impaired Driving. At the end of the trial, the judge found that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had been impaired while driving. The charge was dismissed.