Experience is the key.

If you want to maintain your driving privileges after being charged with a drinking and driving offence, you must dispute the charge. Unlike most other criminal charges, a plea bargain is usually out of the question for a drinking and driving charge. Crown Attorneys are directed by their superiors to prosecute drinking and driving offences to their fullest extent. Therefore, if you expect to have any realistic chance of saving your licence, you will need to hire a lawyer who is experienced at taking drinking and driving charges to trial.

You need to be represented by someone who specializes in drinking and driving cases.

If you think the lawyer who drafts up somebody's will on Monday, closes a real estate deal on Tuesday and then walks into court on Wednesday to represent you on a drinking and driving charge is the best man for the job you are sadly mistaken.

2012 - 2011 - 2010 - 2009 - 2008

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 proseuctor could not prove that the defendant had knowledge that he was suspended at the time of driving, a necessary prerequisite to the charge.

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.

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.

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 wihtin 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Shawyne Y. - Feb 27, 2012 - 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.

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.

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.

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 righrts related to the seizure of the blood. Ultimately, the proseuctor 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.

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 breathalzyer 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.

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.

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.

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 vehcile 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.

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 plead guilty to Carelss Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. As a result the client was not saddled with a criminal record.

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.

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.

OFFICE LOCATIONS

Information Submission Form

Impaired Driving Questionnaire

Experience is the key.