Derek P. Dec. 8 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The breath readings were so close to the legal limit that the prosecutor ultimately conceded that he may not be able to prove that the defendant was above the legal limit at the time of driving. As a result, the prosecutor withdrew the charge.
Jatinder S. – Dec. 3 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample into a breathalyzer. Negotiations with the prosecutor resulted in the defendant being allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and a period of probation where the defendant must have an ignition interlock device installed in his car. The criminal charges were withdrawn.
Michael N. – Dec. 3 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Negotiations with the prosecutor reached a successful conclusion. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. He was required to pay a fine and to drive with an ignition interlock device in his car for a period of time. The prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.
James U. – Dec. 3 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The readings were toward the lower end and the defendant had no record. Negotiations with the prosecutor reached a successful conclusion. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal Highway Traffic Act charge of Careless Driving. He was required to pay a fine and to drive with an ignition interlock device in his car for a period of time. The prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge.
Colin B. – Nov. 25 – The defendant was charged with two very serious allegations, specifically, Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm and Over 80 Causing Bodily Harm. Prior to the trial, the prosecutor failed to disclose important material related to a crucial witness. The trial judge agreed with my argument that the prosecutor ought not to be granted an adjournment in order to provide the missing disclosure and he also agreed with my argument that the prosecutor ought not to be allowed to call the said witness at trial. As a result of this ruling, the prosecutor conceded that she chould not prove either of the allegations against the accused and she withdrew both charges.
Bridie M. – Nov. 24 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Prior to the trial commencing, I was able to convince the prosecutor that he may have difficulty proving that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle at the relevant time. (The defendant had been involved in a motor vehicle accident and was not in her vehicle by the time the police arrived.) The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. She was ordered to pay a fine but did not receive a criminal record. As well, her licence was not suspended. The criminal charges were withdrawn.
Christopher S. – Nov. 3 – The defendant was charged with Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample into a breathalyzer. The charge was dismissed by the trial judge. The judge agreed with my argument that the prosecutor had not proven that the police had the requisite grounds to arrest the defendant and demand that he provide a breath sample.
Oct. 16 – Kajaruban K. – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed by the trial judge. The judge accepted my argument that the prosecutor had failed to put any admissible evidence of the breath readings before the court. As a result there was no evidence to support the charge.
Daryl B. – Oct. 14 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed by the trial judge. The judge accepted my argument that the defendant’s right to counsel was infringed prior to the roadside screening test. As the only grounds for arrest was the evidence of the defendant blowing over on the screening test, the judge agreed with my argument that this justified the exclusion from evidence of both the roadside screening test and the breath samples provided by the defendant at the station.
Tony M. – Oct. 8 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed by the trial judge. The judge accepted my argument that the arresting officer did not use the roadside screening device properly. As the only grounds for arrest was the evidence of the defendant over on the screening test, the judge agreed with my argument that this justified the exclusion from evidence of the breath samples provided by the defendant at the station.
Kunwar K. – Oct. 6 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after trial. The trial judge found that the arresting officer did not formulate the proper grounds for a reasonable suspicion that the defendant had alcohol in his body and acquitted the defendant.
John C. – Sept. 30 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Care or Control and Over 80. On the trial date, the Prosecutor made an offer that we accepted. 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. This offer was made because of a recognition by the Prosecutor of the frailties in his case that included being able to prove that the defendant was in his vehicle at the relevant time. The criminal charges were withdrawn.
Adam L. – Sept. 29 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed after trial. On the Impaired driving charge, the judge found the officer’s credibility lacking and found there was not enough evidence to support a finding of Impairment. With respect to the Over 80 charge, the trial judge found the breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable and dismissed the charge.
Deborah M. – Sept. 25 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. After a complicated 2 day trial, which included evidence from a toxicologist (scientist specializing in alcohol) called by the Prosecutor, I was able to persuade the Judge that the Prosecution had not proven that the defendant’s alcohol level was above the legal limit at the time of driving even though she blew above the legal limit at the police station after driving. The judge dismissed the charge.
Wayne G. – Sept. 8 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Although the defendant had 2 previous convictions, the Prosecutor recognized there would be difficulties in proving his case. Specifically, the breath tests were taken outside the time frame mandated by the Criminal Code. As a result, the Prosecutor offered a resolution that we accepted. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a brief period whereby there were some restrictions placed on his driving privileges. The criminal charge was withdrawn.
Chad K. – August 27 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. I argued several issues including a constitutional argument that the defendant was arbitrarily detained after the completion of the investigation. During the course of the trial, an issue arose that caused the trial judge to believe that he had to declare a mistrial. A recess was taken at that point at which time a resolution was reached between the Prosecutor and me. It was agreed that the defendant would be able to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a period of probation. The criminal charge was dismissed. This resolution was particularly important to the defendant as he drove for a living and the loss of his driving privileges would have been fatal to his employment.
Jason B. – August 27 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The trial judge dismissed both charges. The judge accepted my argument that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest my client and demand that he provide breath samples. As a result of this finding, the judge excluded the breath sample readings from evidence. The judge also accepted my argument that the evidence of the police failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was impaired by alcohol at the time of driving and he dismissed that charge as well. It is noteworthy that the judge excluded breath readings that were 2 1/2 times the legal limit. This underscores the fact that there are defences to these charges even with very high breath readings.
Brandon C. – August 26 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. During the trial, certain frailties arose in the evidence of the police including unexplained delays in the taking of the breath samples and conflicting evidence about signs of impairment. Ultimately, the Prosecutor offered a resolution that we accepted. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and no suspension. The criminal charges were withdrawn. This resolution avoided a criminal record for the young defendant.
Philip Y. – August 26 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed by the trial judge. The judge agreed with my argument that the arresting officer did not have grounds to arrest the defendant and demand breath samples from him. As a result of this finding the judge excluded the breath samples from evidence and he dismissed the Over 80 charge. The trial judge also agreed with my argument that the Prosecutor had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was Impaired and the time of driving and he dismissed that charge as well.
Andrew T. – August 21 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed by the trial judge. The judge agreed with my argument that, although the Prosecutor proved the defendant had breath readings above the legal limit, he failed to prove that the defendant was above the legal limit at the time of driving. The judge also agreed with my argument that the Prosecutor led insufficient evidence to prove the defendant was impaired at the time of driving.
John H. – July 30 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. His readings were at the lower end although still above the legal limit. As he had no criminal past, the Prosecutor allowed him to plead guilty to the lesser charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. He was fined and put on probation with terms that included a period of time where he could only drive with an ignition interlock in his car. He agreed to this resolution whereupon The Over 80 charge was withdrawn.
Robert B – July 9 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Care or Control and Over 80 Care or Control. After my cross-examination of the arresting officer and breathalyzer technician, the prosecutor determined t hat he had no reasonable prospect of conviction on either charge. Both charges were withdrawn by the prosecutor.
Zachary M. – July 8 – The defendant was charged with Over 80 and Fail to Stop for Police. After my cross-examination of the arresting officer, the prosecutor had concerns about her ability to obtain a conviction on either count before the court. As a result, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. He received a fine but no driving suspension. This resolution also allowed him to avoid a criminal record. Once he entered his guilty plea to Careless Driving, both criminal charges were withdrawn by the prosecutor.
Roger P. – July 3 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Care of Control and Over 80 Care or Control. Partway through the trial, the prosecutor conceded that there were too many difficulties with the evidence of the arresting officer to justify continuing the trial. As a result, both charges were dismissed by the trial judge.
Steven C. – June 23 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation of a boat and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed by the judge after a trial. The judge ruled that the defendant’s right to counsel, right to be free from arbitrary detention and right not to be arrested without reasonable and probable grounds were all infringed and that such infringements justified the exclusion from evidence of the breath readings and the dismissal of both charges.
Robert D. – June 18 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. His readings were at the low end, albeit over the legal limit, and he had no criminal record. As a result of the foregoing, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the offence of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and some limitations on his driving privileges. The criminal charge was withdrawn.
Jason N. – May 26 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. I served the Prosecutor with a Constitutional motion alleging the arrest of the defendant was unlawful as it was effected in the absence of reasonable and probable grounds. Because of concerns the Prosecutor had about the prospects of a conviction, he agreed to a resolution whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act and the criminal charges were withdrawn. This resolution allowed the young defendant to avoid a criminal record, his primary concern. He was also allowed to maintain his driving privileges.
Helene L. – June 3 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving. After lengthy negotiations with the Prosecution and because of unusual circumstances surrounding the facts in this case, the defendant was granted a Peace Bond which is a written promise by a defendant to keep the peace and be of good behaviour during the continuance of the bond which, in this case was 1 year. The criminal charge was withdrawn.
Kurtis S. – May 15 – The defendant was charged with Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample into a screening device. After a trial, the trial judge dismissed the charge. The judge accepted my argument that the defendant was unable to comply with the officer’s request to provide a breath sample because of a pre-existing medical condition.
Evan S. – May 13 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. After a trial, the trial judge dismissed the charge. The judge accepted my argument that the police did not have legal authority to stop the defendant who had been seen by police operating his vehicle on private property. As a result, the judge excluded from evidence the breathalyzer readings, thus the acquittal.
Parham A. – May 9 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. After lengthy negotiations, the Prosecutor allowed the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. A term of the agreed resolution was that the defendant would have to drive his motor vehicle with an ignition interlock device for a period of months. After entering his guilty plea to Careless Driving, the Prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.
Joequin D. – May 6 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The judge dismissed both charges at the end of the trial. I was able to convince the judge that the Prosecutor had not proven that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the time in question.
Rosemarie S. – April 28 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Because of witness problems, the Prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the lesser offence of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and no suspension. Thereafter, both criminal charges were withdrawn by the Prosecutor.
William O. – April 25 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed by the trial judge after a trial. I advance 3 arguments at trial and the judge ruled that he would have acquitted on any one of the arguments. Ultimately, the judge concluded that the Crown had not proven that a lawful breathalyzer demand had been made to the defendant and that the evidence of the breath technician was insufficient to prove that the defendant was above the legal limit at the time of driving.
Matthew T. – April 15 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Care or Control and Over 80 Care or Control. The charges were withdrawn by the Prosecutor. I was able to convince the Prosecutor that he had no reasonable prospect of conviction on either charge as the defendant was in a vehicle that was not running and he (the defendant) was able to provide ample evidence that he had no intention of driving the vehicle.
Kiranjit D. – A pril 14 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed by the trial judge. The judge accepted my argument that the breath tests were not performed as soon as practicable, a prerequisite to the prosecution relying upon the readings at trial.
Reshaad B. – April 3 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The Judge stayed the charge (which is the equivalent of a dismissal). The judge accepted my argument that the matter had taken too long to get to trial thus infringing the defendant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time.
Steven R. – April 1 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The facts were challenging, to say the least. For example, the defendant was found by police asleep whil in his vehicle stopped at a red light. Unfortunately for the Crown, the trial could not be reached on the first trial date because of a busy court list. On the second trial date, the matter could not proceed because the arresting officer was ill. Rather thanrun the risk that the charges would be thrown out altogether on a third trial date because the matter had taken too long to get to trial, the Prosecutor allowed the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a limitation on his driving privileges for 6 months wherein he could only lawfully drive to and from work and while at work for work purposes only. The defendant willingly agreed to this resolution as it allowed him to avoid a criminal record and it allowed him to keep his job. After he entered this plea, the Impaired Driving and Over 80 charges were dismissed.
Ryan D. – March 26 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed by the judge after trial. The judge accepted my argument that the defendant’s right to speak to his counsel of choice had been infringed. The arresting police officer testified that he left a voice mail message on the defendant’s lawyer’s cell phone to call the station. We led evidence from the said lawyer that this was impossible as his voice mail had never been initialized and, therefore, leaving a voice mail message was not an option for a caller. The judge ruled that this was a serious enough breach of the defendant’s rights to warrant exclusion of the breath readings from evidence.
Sumeet G. – March 25 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed by the judge after trial. The defendant was intoxicated upon his arrest by police but his arrest occurred after he had completed driving his vehicle and was already in his house. The judge was left in a state of reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was impaired and above the legal limit at the time of driving or whether this occurred after the driving had already ended.
Alex G. – March 23 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The breath readings were towards the lower end and the defendant had no record. The Prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a period of 12 months where his driving privileges were limited but he was still allowed to drive for work purposes. The defendant willingly agreed to this resolution as it avoided a criminal record for him and he was able to keep his job. After entering his plea to Careless Driving, the Over 80 charge was withdrawn by the Prosecutor.
James A. – March 11 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. His readings were both 200 and the evidence showed the defendant was intoxicated. We argued that the defendant was not the driver of the vehicle that crashed into a light standard. After 2 full days of trial which involved a stringent cross-examination of the only eyewitness to the accident, the defendant was found not guilty of all charges based on the unreliability of the civilian witness who gave contradictory testimony on a number of key points.
Kim M. – March 10 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. It was a case that the Crown could win but the breath readings were very low and the matter was not going to be reached on the day of trial. This would require another trial date being set and would have potentially caused excessive delay in the matter being completed. The Crown agreed to withdraw both charges and allowed the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant received a fine and driving restrictions for 12 months wherein she can not operate a motor vehicle that does not have a properly installed ignition interlock.
Varun G. – March 4 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. His readings were 140 and 120. A careful review of the file showed serious Charter issues and irregularities in the way the police obtained their grounds to arrest. We pointed these issues out to the Crown and the Crown agreed to withdraw the Over 80 charge allow the defendant to plead guilty to Carelss Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and a 12 month probation order where he would not operate a motor vehicle unless his blood alcohol concentration was zero. This allowed the defendant to avoid a criminal record keep his job.
Brent P. – Feb. 24 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. His readings were at the low end, albeit over the legal limit, and he had no criminal record. As a result of the foregoing, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the offence of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and some limitations on his driving privileges. The criminal charge was withdrawn.
Danny F. – Feb. 18 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Care or Control and Over 80 care or control. The Prosecutor withdrew both charges after I was able to convince him that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. I did this by presenting statements from defence witnesses that convince the Prosecutor that he should not proceed with the charges.
Susan M. – Feb. 7 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. I had made a request for disclosure of a 911 tape that was not provided to us. Because of the Prosecutor’s concern as to how this would impact the Over 80 charge, and because of concerns he had about the viability of the Impaired Driving charge, a resolution was reached. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and an 8 month period of probation where she was only allowed to drive during the day. The criminal charges were withdrawn. This allowed the defendant to avoid a criminal record and maintain her driving privileges so that she could keep her job.
Thomas V. – Feb. 6 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed by the trial judge. There were several problems with the arresting officer’s evidence including evidence that she made no breathalyzer demand upon arrest and evidence that she used a roadside screening device that was described as one that is not approved by Parliament.
Tylor G. – Feb. 5 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. I had served a constitutional argument in advance of trial alleging that the defendant had been denied his right to counsel of choice. On the trial date, the Prosecutor offered a resolution that was accepted by the defendant. Specifically, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a six month suspension. This was acceptable to the defendant as he was a young person and avoiding a criminal record was crucial to his future plans. The criminal charge was withdrawn.
Michael P. – Jan. 28 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed by the trial judge. While the defendant was clearly drunk upon arrest and blew well above the legal limit, the judge was left in a state of reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was impaired and/or above the legal limit at the time of driving.
Trina W. – Jan. 22 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed by the trial judge. I was able to convince the judge that the breathalyzer instrument had not been used properly by the technician which raised a doubt in the judge’s mind as to whether the defendant was above the legal limit at the time of driving.
E.C. – Jan. 22 – The defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm (x2). The case was primarily based on the speed of the vehicle. We hired a reconstructionist (a forensic engineer who examines traffic accidents and attempts to determine what happened) who prepared a report that cast doubt on the speed alleged by the prosecution. A resolution was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act charge of Careless Driving for a fine and a six month driving suspension. The criminal charges were withdrawn.
David D. – Jan. 17 – The defendant was charged with Impaired, Over 80 and Breach of Undertaking. After negotiations with the Prosecutor, it was agreed that the defendant would be allowed to plead guilty to the single charge of Breach of Undertaking for a fine. The Impaired Driving and Over 80 charges were withdrawn. The Prosecutor had concerns about being able to prove the 2 drinking and driving charges which is why I was able to obtain this resolution.
Ryan U. – Jan. 17 – The Defendant was charged with Impaired driving and Over 80. Prior to trial, I served several constitutional arguments on the Crown alleging that the defendant’s right to counsel had been infringed as well as his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Just before the commencement of the trial, I was able to persuade the Prosecutor to withdraw the criminal charges. In exchange, the Defendant pled guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. He was sentenced to a fine of $1,000 and a period of probation during which time he could only drive for work purposes. This allowed the defendant to avoid a Criminal record and keep his job.
Trevor M. – Jan. 16 – The Defendant was charged with Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample into a roadside breathalyzer. Part way through the trial, I was able to persuade the Prosecutor that there were sufficient frailties in the evidence of the arresting officer that justified a resolution. The Prosecutor agreed and invited the judge to dismiss the charge. In exchange, the defendant pled guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. He was sentenced to an $800 fine and a period of probation during which time the defendant could not operate a motor vehicle with any alcohol in his system.
John T – Jan. 8 – The defendant was charged with Impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and Over 80 care or control of a motor vehicle. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. I was able to persuade the trial judge that the Crown had not led sufficient evidence that the defendant had ever been in the vehicle at the material time.
Eileen N. – Jan. 10 The defendant was charged with over 80. After hearing the evidence of the arresting officer and our client, the judge believed our client and found the arresting officer had interfered with her right to counsel. The charge was dismissed.
