RECENT SUCCESSES

 2010

Terry W. - July 8th - The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  The charges were stayed (which is the equivalent of a dismissal) by the trial judge.  The  trial judge concluded that the defendant's right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.  It was on this basis that he stayed the charges.

Randy S. - June 30th - The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  In a bizarre set of facts, the defendant was stopped while operating a golf cart near his cottage.  He owned the golf cart and was using it as a recreational vehicle.  Indeed, a golf cart is considered a "motor vehicle" under the Criminal Code as it has a motor (even though this golf cart could go no faster than approximately 20 miles per hour).  The trial went much of the day.  In a conclusion to the trial that was as bizarre as the facts giving rise to the charge, the following occurred:   during my final submissions to the judge, an issue arose about specific evidence tendered by one of the witnesses at trial.  In order to resolve the dispute, I requested that a portion of the tape (all evidence in criminal trials are  tape recorded) be played back.  Due to technical difficulties, this could not take place.  Rather than having the matter adjourned to another day in order to resolve the technical difficulties, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and a 4 month suspension of his driving privileges with the exception that he could drive for work purposes during that period.

Jonathan Y. - June 29th - The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  The prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge partway through the trial and the judge dismissed the Impaired Driving charge at the end of the trial.   The prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge as he acknowledged that the delay between the time of driving and the taking of the breath samples was too long to allow the breath samples to be used against the defendant at trial.  The judge dismissed the Impaired Driving charge at the end of the trial as he found that the symptoms of impairment proven by the Crown at trial was insufficient to meet the burden of proof cast upon the Crown which is that proof  be beyond a reaonsable doubt.  He relied, in large measure, on the appearance of the defendant in the video taken of him at the police station on the occasion of his charge.

Sherry B. - June 24th - The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  At the conclusion of the Crown's case, the prosecutor invited the judge to dismiss both charges and the judge did so.  The prosecutor invited the judge to dismiss the Over 80 charge as he acknowledged he could not prove the time of driving on the evidence he led.  He invited the judge to dismiss the Impaired driving charge as he acknowledged the evidence of impairment at the time of driving was not strong enough to meet the test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

G.H. - June 23rd - The defendant, a high ranking civil servant, was charged with Over 80.  I prepared a constitutional argument prior to trial alleging that the defendant's right to counsel had been infringed.   I made several efforts prior to trial to resolve the matter by way of a guilty plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act.  All of these efforts met with no success.  On the trial date, the prosecutor agreed to this resolution.  The defendant pled guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and no suspenion and the Over 80 charge was withdrawn.  As can be imagined, the defendant's main concern was avoiding a criminal conviction and this resolution met that objective.

Parminder B. - June 9th - The defendant was charged with Over 80. Because of difficulties the Crown was having in securing the attendance of one of the police witnesses, the Crown agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act.  The agreed resolution also involved a suspension of 90 days but an exception was allowed for work purposes.  This resolution avoided a criminal record for the defendant.

Nathan M. - May 21st - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The issue at trial was whether the applicant's right to counsel of choice had been infringed.  The applicant wanted to speak to me the night he was charged but the arresting officer dialed the wrong number.  Partway through the trial, it was agreed that rather than concluding the trial and leaving it up to the judge to decide whether the breath readings ought to be excluded from evidence, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving.  He had to pay a fine and was put on a Provincial Offences probation order for 6 months that allowed him to operate his motor vehicle for limited purposes including going to and from work.

David K. - May 20th - The defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving.  Had the matter gone  to trial, six witnesses would have testified, three for the Crown and three for the defence.  It was clear on the trial date that the matter would not be reached and another trial date would have to be set.  Because of concerns the prosecutor had that the matter might be dismissed on the subsequent trial date because the matter would have taken too long to get to trial, he agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving, a non-criminal Highway Traffic Act offence, for a brief 60 day suspension. 

Derek B. - May 19th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  Partway through the trial, I was able to pursuade the prosecutor that he would have difficulty proving his case beyond a reasonable doubt.  The evidence of the arresting officer was fraught with deficiencies of a technical nature.  The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and no driver's licence suspension.  This resolution also avoided a criminal conviction for the defendant.

Andrzej M. - May 14th - The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  Due to witness problems experienced by the Crown, the prosecutor allowed the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine.  This allowed the defendant to avoida criminal conviction and to avoid a driver's licence suspension.

Atul K. - May 12th - The defendant was charged with Refusing to provide a breath sample into a roadside screening device.  The prosecutor invited the judge to dismiss the charge after I cross-examined the arresting officer.  The officer agreed that it would appear to him that the defendant was under some form of disability rather than intentionally failing to provide a proper sample. 

Jesse L. - April 29th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  While we had requested full disclosure early on in the proceedings, we were only provided with additional disclosure very close to the trial date.  While the defence would have been entitled to an adjournment, the Crown was agreeable, because of the late disclosure, to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and brief suspension of 30 days.  This avoided a criminal record for the defendant which was a major concern of his.

Manjit G. - April 28th - The defendant was charged with Fail to stop after accident and Obstruct Police.  Partway through the trial, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to a Highway Traffic Act  offence where he was allowed to drive for work purposes.  The Crown agreed to this resolution because of difficulties from the evidence of the civilian witnesses for the Crown that became evident during cross examination.

Nicholas V. - April 28th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The charge was dismissed after a  trial.  This is a perfect example of the type of technical defence that can often lead to success in an Over 80 charge.  The arresting officer indicated a time that he turned the defendant over to the breathalyzer technician.  However, the certificate of the breathalyzer technician indicated the time of the first breath reading as being 3 minutes before the time testified to by the arresting officer. This was sufficient to raise a doubt as to the time of the breath readings and an acquittal was entered by the trial judge.

Carla J. - April 27th - The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  Both charges were dismissed after a trial.  The trial judge ruled that the arresting officer did not have sufficient grounds to arrest the defendant and demand breath samples from her.  This ruling resulted in both allegations being dismissed.

Fedja C. - April 23rd - The defendant was charged with Refusing to accompany a police officer for the purpose of providing breath samples.  The charge was dismissed.  While there were a host of frailties with the Crown's evidence, what one the day was the fact that the arresting officer failed to properly identify the roadside screening device, the fail on which afforded the arresting officer his grounds to make the demand for breath samples in the first place.

Andrew B. - April 7th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  Because of witness difficulties, the Crown was required to withdraw the charge against the defendant on the trial date.

Darren B. - March 31st - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  His readings were very close to the legal limit and he had no criminal record.  The Crown allowed him to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a very brief licence suspension.

Michael M. - March 26th  - The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80.  We were able to pursuade the Crown that they had difficulties with their case including the fact that it may have taken too long to get to trial.  The Crown agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act whereby the defendant paid a fine but did not lose his driving privileges nor did he obtain a criminal record.

Harvey J. - March 15th - The defendant was charged with Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample into a roadside screening device.  In an unusual and very technical issue, the police drafted the "information" (charging document) incorrectly by alleging in the information that the defendant had failed to provide a sample into the breathalyzer instrument rather than the screening device.  Although this was an error that could have been corrected, it would have allowed options to the defendant that he wouldn't otherwise have had, for example, the right to a jury trial.  In order to avoid this outcome, the Crown agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine an no suspension of his driving privileges.

Christopher S. - March 11th - The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Over 80, Fail to Attend Court and the Highway Traffic Act offence of Operating a Motor Vehicle with any alcohol in his system contrary to his G2 status.  I was able to pursuade the Crown that they would have had difficulties proving the identity of the driver of the motor vehicle in question.  An agreement was reached whereby the defenddant plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and no suspension of his driving privileges.  All criminal charges as well as the G2 charge were withdrawn.  The defendant was a young male and avoiding a criminal record was obviously very important to him.

Todd M. - Feb. 19th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The defendant advanced an argument as to whether he had been afforded his right to counsel of choice.  During the trial, evidence was adduced during my cross-examination of the officer that revealed the officer had destroyed scratch pad notes that would have included reference to an issue crucial to the determination of the right to counsel argument.  During a break in the trial, I confronted the Crown about this and we ultimately agreed to resolving the matter by allowing the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act.  He received a fine and a six month probation order that allowed him to operate his motor vehicle for work purposes only.  After the six months, his driving privileges would be fully restored.  This resolution avoided a criminal record for the defendant which was his main concern as such a record would have likely been fatal to his employment.

Antal S. - Feb. 18th - The defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving.  He entered onto a highway that had been closed for repairs.  We were able to pursuade the prosecutor that although the act itself was outrageous, it probably did not amount to dangerous driving as there was no evidence that any of the construction workers that were on the highway at the time were ever in danger.  The matter was resolved by way of a plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act which included a fine and a period of probation for 12 months wherein the defendant could not drive between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Joseph K. - Feb. 18 - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The charge was dismissed as the judge found there was a reasonable doubt as to whether the breath readings obtained at the police station accurately reflected the defendant's blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving. 

Thomas M. - Jan. 29th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  A Crown witness failed to attend at trial which left open the prospect that the Crown may not be able  to prove their case were the matter to go to trial.  The prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act thus avoiding a criminal conviction for the defendant.   The defendant was put on probation for 9 months during which time he could operate his motor vehicle for work purposes only.  Thereafter he would be entitled to operate his motor vehicle for all purposes.

Dharshan R. - Jan. 28th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  There was some issue as to whether the Crown would be able to prove that the breath samples were taken within the time frame that is mandated by the Criminal Code.  As such, an agreement was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act and the Over 80 charge was withdrawn.  The defendant was put on a 9  month period of probation during which time he could operate his motor vehicle  for work purposes only.  After the  9 month period, the defendant would be entitled to operate his motor vehicle for all purposes.  The defendant was youthful and therefore, he avoidance of a criminal record was particularly significant for him.

Tracy D. - Jan. 27th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  Had this matter gone to trial, several interesting issues would have been argued.  Such issues included whether the arresting officer could have made a lawful roadside screening device demand in circumstances where he could smell alcohol in  the vehicle but not on the defendant's breath.  A second interesting argument would have been whether the arresting officer could have lawfully stopped the defendant randomly in an area that was deemed an aboriginal reservation.  After some negotiations, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act.  He was put on probation for six months during which time he was allowed to operate his motor vehicle for work purposes only.  Once the six month period came to an end, he would be entitled to operate his motor vehicle for all purposes.  This resolution also avoided a criminal record for the defendant which was particularly significant for the defendant for his employment as he would have lost his employment if he had obtained a criminal record.

Randolph G. - Jan. 26th - The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  The Crown was faced with a host of problems in this case including an issue of drinking after driving and some indecision on the part of the arresting officer as to whether she ought to arrest the defendant with or without the assistance of a roadside screening device.  The Crown agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to 2 minor Highway Traffic Act offences for modest fines.  The Impaired and Over 80 charges were withdrawn.

Ireneusz S. - Jan. 22nd - The defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving, Fail to Stop for Police and Stunt Driving.  All three charges were stayed (which is the equivalend of a dismissal) as the trial judge found that the matters took too long to get to trial and thereby infringed the defendant's constitutional right to be tried within a reasonable time.

Rodney H. - Jan. 20th - The defendant was charged with Over 80 and Possession of marijuana.  The over 80 charge was dismissed after a trial.  The judge dismissed the charge by finding that the arresting officer lacked the grounds in law to arrest the defendant  and make a lawful breath demand of him.  The drug charge was withdrawn upon the defendant's undertaking to make a charitable donation. 

Richard A. - Jan 19th - The defendant was charged with having the care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired and having the care or control of a motor vehicle while over the legal limit of alcohol.  He had a previous conviction approximately 10 years prior to this occurrence.  I was able to persuade the Crown not to proceed on the Impaired and Over 80 counts (which would have resulted in an automatic driving prohibition of a minimum of 1 year ) and instead allow the defendant to plead guilty to another criminal offence, specifically, mischief.  By agreement, he was put on a probation order of 1 year the last 8  months of which he could operate his motor vehicle for work purposes only.

Chad C. Jan. 18th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  Because of a contradiction between the certificate of the qualified technician and the notes of the qualified technician, the Crown allowed the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act thus avoiding a criminal record and a loss of licence suspension.

Sean S. - Jan. 13th - The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  A Crown witness was unavailable for the trial date.  Rather than seeking an adjournment, which the Court could have denied or, if granted, might leave the Crown vulnerable to  a delay argument on the next court date, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a 90 day suspension.  This avoided a  criminal conviction for the defendant as well as an automatic 1 year driving prohibition.

Chris L. - Jan. 5th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  Because of a technicial frailty in the Crown's case the Crown agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act thus avoideing a  criminal record.  He was also able to continue driving as he was put on a Provincial Offences Probation order where he could continue operating his motor vehicle so long as it was equipped with an ignition interlock device.  This condition was for a 1 year period after which time he could remove the device.

2009

Justin U. - Dec. 15th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The charge was dismissed as there was no evidence that a lawful demand was made for breath samples.  This is the type of technical defence that can often carry the day on an Over 80 allegation.

Brian W. - Dec. 1st - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  Because of a technical  frailty in the Crown's case, the Crown was agreeable to  allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act.  The agreement stipulated that he would be put on a 6 month period of probation the only term being that he not operate a motor vehicle between midnight and 6:00 a.m. during the said six months.

Selladhurai P. - Nov. 30th - The defendant was charged with Impaired  and Over 80.  He was also charged with a breach of his release on the Over 80 charge.  I served a motion in advance of trial that alleged several constitutional infringements against my client.  Rather than argue the issues at trial, an agreement was reached whereby the defendant plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine.  It was also agreed that the breach charge would be withdrawn.  Thus, the defendant avoided a criminal record and a driving suspension.

Ivan R. - Nov. 30th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The prosecutor was missing witnesses that he required to prove the case.  Although he could have sought an adjournment, an agreement was reached whereby the defendant plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine.  As a result the defendant was able to avoid a criminal record and a driving suspension.

Bradley S. - Nov. 23rd - The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  We were prepared to argue at trial that the police did not have reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the defendant and demand breath samples from him.  The prosecutor acknowledged that there were obstacles to conviction that he could not clear.  He withdrew both charges on the trial date.

Lindsay K. - Nov. 20th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  We were prepared to advance an argument at trial that the defendant was not afforded her rights to counsel of choice before taking the breathalyzer tests.  Rather than proceed to trial, a resolution was reached whereby the defendant plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act.  This avoided a criminal record.  She was suspended from driving for 90 days and then could only drive pursuant to a curfew for the next 90 days.  She also paid a fine.  Had she been convicted of Over 80, she would have lost her licence for a minimum 1 year.

Earl P. - Nov. 18th - The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80.  The breathalyzer technician neglected to record the temperature of the "standard solution", a solution that is run through the breathalyzer to confirm that the breathalyzer is in proper working order.  The temperature of the standard solution is an important factor necessary to ensure that the solution is reliable. Rather than argue the matter at trial, we reached a resolution whereby the defendant plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act.  He received a fine and no driving licence suspension.  By pleading guilty to Careless Driving he avoided a criminal record.

Darren D. - Nov. 17th - The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80.  The prosecutor conceded that she would have some challenges proving the case.  The  defendant was allowed to plead  guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a 30 day licence suspension.  He was thus able to  avoid a criminal conviction and the minimum 1 year suspension that would have gone along with it.

Luciano T. - Nov. 2nd - The defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving and Failing to Stop After Accident.  In a fascinating case, 3 teenage girls alleged that the defendant attempted to run them down with his car.  In a trial that took 2 days to complete, I was able to lead sufficient evidence to establish that the girls had made the allegation up from whole cloth such that the crown, in her submissions to the court, invited the court to dismiss both charges.  The judge did so.

Michael P. - Oct. 23rd - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The arresting officer was not able to attend court on the trial date because of illness.  Rather than adjourn the matter and run the risk that they would lose the matter on a delay argument, the Crown agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act.  As well, the defendant was put on a 6 month period of probation where he could only drive during the 6 months for work purposes.  This was an excellent result for the defendant as he was in his early 20's and a criminal record would have been devastating for him as regards future employment opportunities.

John B. - Oct. 21st - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The arresting officer did not perform a self test on the roadside screening device before using it on the defendant.  I was able to persuade the prosecutor that we would have a strong argument, going to the issue of reasonable and probable grounds, based on the failure to perform such self test.  As a result, the prosecutor agreed to withdraw the over 80 charge and allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act.  Part of the plea agreement was that the defendant was to receive a 6 month driving suspension which the defendant was quite prepared to accept as this avoided a criminal record for him. 

Michael L. - Oct. 14th - The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The judge dismissed the Impaired driving charge by finding that the evidence was in sufficient to prove that allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.  The over 80 charge was dismissed as the judge found that the tests were not taken as soon as practicable which is a technical statutory precondition for reliance upon breath readings. 

Mika K. - Oct. 8th - The defendant had been charged with Over 80.  The judge stayed the charge (which is the equivalent of a dismissal) because he found the matter took too long to get to trial.

Grant L. Oct. 6th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  Evidence came out during the trial that the arresting officer failed to perform a self test on the roadside screening device before using it on the defendant. I was able to persuade the prosecutor that, if argued, the court may well find that such failure would have precluded a finding that the officer was vested with reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the defendant.  As a result, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine, but no suspension.

Nedzmin A. - October 2nd - The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  The charges were stayed (which is the equivalent of a dismissal) as the trial judge found that the matter had taken too long to get to trial.

David O. - October 1st - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The police were not able  to obtain breath samples within a time frame prescribed by statute.  In an unusual occurrence, the evidence was completed at trial and I finished making my submissions to the Court when the prosecutor asked for a recess and approached me regarding a resolution of the matter.  Ultimately, it was agreed that  the defendant would plead guilty to a minor Highway Traffic Act offence for a small fine and no suspension.  He also agreed to make a donation to charity as part of the resolution.

Stuart M - September 24th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The trial had begun several months prior to this date.  Because of concerns the prosecutor had that the matter would eventually be dismissed for delay, it was agreed that the defendant could plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant thereby avoided a criminal convcition and was able to maintain his driving privileges.

Edmund R. - September 24th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The police were not able to get breath readings from the defendant within the time required by statute.  Although the prosecution could have proceeded with the assistance of evidence from an expert witness, it was agreed that the defendant would plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act whereby the defendant was able to avoid a criminal conviction and maintain his driving privileges.

Daniel M. - September 17th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving with a term that for 18 months, he would have to operate a motor vehicle only with an ignition interlock attached.  The defendant readitly agreed to this resolution.

Elizabeth D. - September 16th - The defendant was charged with Over 80. I was able to persuade the prosecutor that, because the roadside device had not been calibrated in a timely fashion, reasonable and probable grounds would be strong issue for the defence at trial.  It was agreed that the defendant plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act.  This was of particular significance to the defendant as a criminal conviction would have caused her to lose her employment.

Enzo D. - September 11th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The charge was dismissed by the trial judge after a trial.  The judge was left in a state of reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was above the legal limit at the time of driving based on his version of alcohol consumption that he provided at trial.

David D. - September 8th - The defendant was charged with driving while disqualified.  While the Crown was originally seeking a  jail sentence for this offence, I was able to persuade the prosecutor that proof of the offence would be difficult because of certain technical frailties in their case.  The matter was ultimately resolved by the defendant pleading guilty to driving under suspension under the Highway Traffic Act.  Although this carried a 6 month suspension with it, it avoided the 1 year prohibition that would have come with a conviction for driving while disqualified.  Also, instead of a jail sentence, he only had to pay a fine.

Mark B. - September 4th - The defendant was involved in a motor vehicle accident where blood samples were taken.  He was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  I was able to persuade  the Crown that the results of the blood sample could not be related back to the time of driving.  Also, I was able to persuade the prosecutor that any symptoms of alcohol impairment were equally consistent with the after affects of a serious motor vehicle accident.  We ultimately agreed to a settlement whereby the defendant plead guilty to a minor traffic offence for a modest fine and no suspension.

Janice S. - September 1st - The defendant was charged Impaired Driving and Over 80.  An essential police did not attend on the trial date because she had resigned from the force.  The Crown requested an adjournment to have the witness brought to court by subpoena.  The Court would not allow the adjournment.  Thereafter, the Crown withdrew both charges.

K. K. - August 26th - The defendant, a young offender, was charged with Impaired Driving and Possession of a Narcotic.  His readings were below the legal limit.  As a result, he was allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving for a brief suspension that allowed for an exception for work purposes.  In lieu of the Crown proceeding on the drug charge, the defendant performed some community service hours.

Murray K. - August 26th - The defendant was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while above the legal limit.  Had the  matter gone to trial, the defendant would have advanced the defence that he had no intention of driving at the time the police observed him asleep in his vehicle.  As the defendant had driven to the point where he stopped his vehicle and went to sleep, a resolution was reached whereby he plead guilty to Careless Driving and he received a six month suspension.  More importantly for his purposes he was able to avoid a criminal record.

Paul D. - July 30th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  We were able to pursuade the prosecutor that there was a right to counsel issue that may well be fatal to the Crown's case.  As a result, a resolution was reached whereby the defendant plead guilty to careless driving.  He thereby avoided a criminal record and the loss of driving privileges.

Henry G. - July 27th - The defendant was charged with Impaired Care or Control and Over 80 Care or Control as well as several Provincial offences.  This was a fascinating case that engaged several diverse issues including the following:  1) Whether blood samples taken by a nurse at the request of a police officer are admissible as evidence against an accused.  2)  Whether one can be considered in "care or control" of one vehicle when it is being towed by another. After a trial that lasted for several days, the judge dismissed the charges and found that the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in care or control of his motor vehicle on this occasion.(He did not address the blood seizure issue)

William A. - July 22nd - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The charge was dismissed after a trial.  A doubt was raised as to whether a proper formal demand had ever been communicated to the defendant by police.  Based on this doubt, the judge dismissed the charge.

Brett S. - July 9th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  As a result of frailties in the Crown's case, he was allowed to plead guilty to 2 minor Highway Traffic Act offences.  He neither lost his licence nor did he obtain a criminal record with this result.

Heather P. - July 8th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  She had low readings, had driven a very short distance and had no criminal past.  As a result, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act.  By being allowed to enter this plea, she was able to avoid the loss of her driving privileges and a criminal record.

Rod N. - July 7th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  Because of a technical difficulty that was brought to the attention of the Crown, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act.  This was particularly beneficial to the defendant as he would have been facing a lifetime suspension of his driver's licence had he been convicted of the Over 80 charge.

Bill P. - June 29th - The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  Both charges were dismissed by the trial judge.  The Impaired Driving charge was dismissed as  the judge found there was no evidence to support that charge.  The Over 80 charge was dismissed as the judge accepted the defence argument that the prosecutor failed to lead evidence of a lawful demand for breath samples having been made by the officer to the defendant.  This was a classic example of the type of technical defence that can often carry the day in an Over 80 allegation.

Calvin C. - June 25th - The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  I was able to persuade the prosecutor that he would not be able to prove that the defendant was the operator of the motor vehicle at the time in question.  The prosecutor agreed to withdraw the charge in exchange for the defendant making a $200.00 donation to charity.

Jason C. - June 24th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  This matter went on for several days.  Although I felt confident that we could prevail were the matter to be taken to its conclusion, the defendant did not want to take any chances.  He was a father of 2 young children, one a newborn, and he would have lost his job had he lost his driving privileges.  Therefore, he instructed me to attempt to negotiate a settlement with the prosecutor.  I succeeeded in persuading the prosecutor to proceed no further with the Over 80 charge in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act.  The defendant was put on a 1 year period of probation one of the terms being that he could only drive during that 1 year period for work purposes.  This fulfilled the defendant's objectives as he was able to maintain his employment.  Moreover, it avoided the defendant having a criminal record.

Thomas H. - June 24th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  He was found not guilty as the trial judge had a reasonable doubt on the defence of evidence to the contrary.  That is, the judge had a reasonable doubt whether the defendant consumed a sufficient amount of alcohol to put him above the legal limit at the time of driving.

Jeff G. - June 18th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The Crown withdrew the charge.  The Crown acknowledged that they had no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Ronald N. - June 9th - The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  Because the Crown acknowledged there were problems proving this case, it was agreed that the defendant would plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and no suspension.

Alexander K. - June 9th - The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  This matter involved the seizure of blood samples.  We were prepared to argue constitutional issues related to the seizure of the said samples but the Crown agreed to allow him to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and a brief suspension of 90 days.

Benjamin S. - June 4th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The defendant was acquitted by the trial judge as the judge had a reasonable doubt whether he was above the legal limit at the time of driving based on the defendant's  version of what he had consumed on the date in question. 

Scott H. - June 3rd - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  Prior to the trial commencing, I alerted the prosecutor to what I perceived to be a technical difficulty with the Crown's case.  The Crown agreed to withdraw the charge if the defendant pleaded guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine an no suspension.  The defendant agreed to do so.

Woo L. - June 1st - The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  The trial went on for several days.  Many issues were argued including an alleged breach of the defendant's right to speak to counsel who could communicate with  the defendant in his mother tongue.  On this date, which was set for the continuation of the trial, the prosecutor agreed to invite the court to dismiss the charges in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and no driver's licence suspension.

Angelo S. - May 29th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The defendant provided 3 samples of his breath into a breathalyzer.  One of the samples was close to the legal limit.  Although the breathalyzer technician took the position that this sample was inadequate, the prosecutor ultimately agreed with the defence position that that sample was a proper sample and ought to have been accepted by the breathalzyer technician.  The sample was close enough to the legal limit that the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty to the Highway Traffic offence of Careless Driving.  This avoided a criminal record and licence suspension for the defendant.

Todor B. - May 26th - The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Refusing to provide a breath sample.  Both charges were stayed (which is the equivalent of a dismissal) as the Court ruled that the matter took too long to get to trial thus infringing the defendant's right to be tried within a reasonable time.

Steven M. - May 13th - The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  A witness that was necessary for the Crown to proceed with the case mis-diarized what day he was supposed to attend court.  Although the prosecutor could have asked for an adjournment, the prosecutor acknowledged that it would be unlikely that such request would succeed.  The prosecutor withdrew the charges upon the defendant's undertaking to make a donation to a charitable organization.

Dustan M. - May 7th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  It was apparent the matter was not going to get reached on the date set for trial.  The prosecutor had concerns that the matter was vulnerable to an argument down the road that the matter had taken too long to get to trial.  As a result, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving thus avoiding a criminal record and driver's licence suspension for the defendant.

Jordan B. - May 6th - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  At trial, the prosecutor fail to lead evidence that a copy of the certificate that had the breath readings contained therein was served upon the defendant.  This is a requirement in the Criminal Code if the Crown wishes to proceed by way of Certificate evidence on a Over 80 charge.  A very technical issue but one that was sufficient to result in a dismissal of the charge.

Nadine P. - April 29th - The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  It appeared that the matter would not be reached that day as another matter had priority and was destined to take much of the court day.  Rather than risk the matter being put over to a day far enough in the future such that the matter would be vulnerable to a delay argument by the defence, the Crown agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act whereby she was allowed to maintain her driving privileges.  This was particularly important to the defendant who is a single mother who would have been unable to get to her job or attend to the needs of her child had she lost her driver's licence.

William M. - April 23rd - The defendant was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while in excess of the legal limit.  I was able to pursuade the prosecutor to withdraw the charge by convincing him that he had no reasonable prospect of conviction.  We ultimately agreed that the defendant would make a donation to a charitable organization whereupon the Crown would withdraw the charge.

Albin S. - April 22nd - The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  I served the Crown with a right to counsel motion and on the strength of  this motion, the Crown chose to proceed only on the Impaired Driving count.  After a day and a half long trial, which included 3 police witnesses all of whom testified they believed the defendant was impaired, the trial judge acquitted the defendant noting inconsistencies in the evidence of the police witnesses and  the reliability and credibility of the defendant's evidence.

James B. - April 15th - The defendant was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while above the legal limit.  The Crown allowed the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and no suspension.  This was a career-saving resolution for the defendant who is employed as a commercial pilot and would likely have lost his job had he been convicted of a criminal offence.

Martin B. - April 14th - The defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving.  The prosecutor withdrew the charge due to a lack of evidence.

Vikram K. - April 7th - The defendant was charged with being Impaired by a drug.  We were able to obtain medical reports  that indicated that the defendant was a diabetic and that if his blood-sugar dropped too low, his symptoms would be exactly those displayed by the defendant when he was arrested. On the trial date, the Crown withdrew the charge.

Adrian W. - March 13th - The defendant was charged Over 80.  Both his readings were under 100.  The judge dismissed the charge by finding that the inherent margin of error that the breathalyzer was subject to raised a doubt in his mind as to whether the defendant was above the legal limit at the time of driving.

William M. - March 11th, 2009 - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The defendant had lower end readings and the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty to Careless Driving for a 90 day suspension. This avoided a criminal record for the defendant and a much longer suspension which would have followed had he been convicted of the over 80 offence.

Paul D. - March 6th, 2009 - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  Although the readings were almost three times the legal limit, the arresting officer's evidence during trial was fraught with technical deficiencies.  After his evidence concluded, the prosecutor offered to withdraw the Over 80 charge if the defendant plead guilty to Careless Driving.  This offer was accepted by the defendant as it avoided a criminal record and loss of driving privileges.

Sara B. - March 4th, 2009 - The defendant was charged with Impaired driving and Over 80.  The prosecutor chose not to proceed on the Over 80 charge for a reason she chose not to disclose to me (I had advanced a constitutional argument in an attempt to exclude the readings and it may be that the prosecutor did not believe she would prevail on that argument).  The judge found the evidence of impairment insufficient to convict and acquitted the defendant.

Louise S. - March 2nd, 2009 - The defendant was charged with Impaired driving and Over 80.  We advanced an argument that the roadside screening device used by the police was unreliable as it had not been calibrated within a 14 day requirement mandated by the Alcohol Test Committee, a government committee that concerns itself with issues related to breath testing instruments.  The prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to a Highway Traffic Act offence thus avoiding a criminal record and loss of driving privileges.

Jesenko G. - February 27th, 2009 - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  Along with many constitutional issues that were advanced at trial, the defendant testified to a version of alcohol consumption that would have resulted in his being below the legal limit at the time of driving but over at the time he provided his breath samples.  The trial judge acquitted him on this last issue and  therefore felt no need to address the several constitutional issues advanced during the trial.

Juness R. - February 27th, 2009 - The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The arresting officer investigated this matter which involved a single motor vehicle accident.  Although the officer testified at trial that she observed the defendant sitting in the driver's seat upon the officer's arrival (which would have been the legal equivalent of seeing her driving), we were able to prove that this was impossible as another witness stated that the defendant was in his car upon the arrival of the police.  The prosecutor ultimately chose to withdraw the charge partway through the trial.

Philip I. - February 18th, 2009 - The defendant was charged with Impaired driving, Refusing to provide a breath sample and Dangerous driving.  We advanced an argument that the defendant's right to counsel had been ingringed because he was not allowed the opportunity to speak to his father who would have been able to assist him in getting counsel.  This issue, as well as other concerns the prosecutor had about proof caused the prosecutor to agree to withdraw all three criminal charges and allow the defendant to plead guilty to a Highway Traffic Act offence thus avoiding a criminal record and loss of driving privileges.

Vincent W. - February 11th, 2009 - The defendant was charged with Failing to provide a breath sample into a roadside screening device.  As a result of a heavy trial list, the matter could not be reached.  The prosecutor had concerns about the matter ultimately being thrown out for delay and allowed the defendant to plead guilty to a Highway Traffic Act offence wherein he avoided a criminal record and loss of licence.

Clayton W. - February 5th, 2009 - The defendant was charged with Impaired Care or control and over 80.  The prosecutor determined that he had no reasonable prospect of conviction and withdrew the charges.

John A. - February 4th, 2009 - The defendant was charged with over 80.  The prosecutor agreed to reduce the charge to careless driving  thus avoiding a criminal record.  the defendant was given a 30 days licence suspension after which he could drive pursuant to a curfew thus allowing him to continue driving for work purposes.

Gary S. - January 27th, 2009 - The defendant was charged with over 80.  The prosecutor agreed to reduce the charge to Careless driving thus avoiding a criminal record and licence suspension.

  Eric I. - January 20th, 2009 - Although the defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80 and had breath readings close to three times the legal limit, the charges were stayed (which is the equivalent of a dismissal) because the judge ruled that the matter had taken too long to get to trial.

Richard W. - January 8th, 2009 - The defendant was charged with dangerous driving and fail to stop after accident.  Negotiations with the prosecutor resulted in the defendant being allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act thus avoiding a criminal record for the defendant

2008

Lawrence K. - December 17th, 2008 -  the charges against the defendant were stayed (which is  the equivalent of a dismissal) because I was able to pursuade the trial judge that the matter took too long to get to trial.

Jugoslav K. - December 16th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and refusing to provide breath samples.  I was able to pursuade the trial judge that the arresting officer lacked the grounds to arrest the applicant and demand breath samples from him.  This finding resulted in a dismissal of both charges.

Robert K. - December 15th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and over 80.  The judge dismissed both charges as he was not satisfied that the Crown had proven the "care or control" component of the allegations.

Jamie L. - December 11th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with being impaired while operating a snow mobile.  Had he been convicted, he would have lost his right to operate a motor vehicle for 1 year even though he had been operating a snow mobile at the time of the alleged offence.  The prosecutor agreed to reduce the charge to Careless Driving under the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act thereby avoiding a criminal conviction for the defendant and the 1 year loss of licence.

Stephen B. - November 20th, 2008  - the defendant was charged with being in Care or Control of a motor vehicle while impaired and while being over the legal limit.  The justice dismissed both charges.  He had no doubt that the defendant was both impaired and over the legal limit but the evidence did leave him in doubt as to whether the Crown had proven that he was "in care or control" of his vehicle while impaired or above the legal limit.

Lynn S. - November 5th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  The prosecutor withdrew these two charges on the trial date.  He withdrew the Over 80 charge because the police took too long to obtain the breath readings.  He withdrew the Impaired Driving charge as the symptoms of impairment were minimal.

Patrick K. - October 30th, 2008 - the defendant had been charged with Over 80.  The trial judge stayed the charge (which is the equivalent of a dismissal) as he ruled that the matter took too long to get to trial and thereby infringed the defendant's right to be tried within a reasonable time.

Kay R. - October 24th, 2008 - the defendant had been charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  This was the second day for trial.  The judge stayed the charges (which is the equivalent of a dismissal) as he found that the matters took too long to conclude and thereby infringed the defendant's right to be tried within a reasonable time.

Miranda M. - October 15th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Over 80.  The prosecutor agreed to withdraw the charge and allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act.  The defendant was allowed to maintain their driving privileges.

Raimy L. - October 14th, 2008  - the defendant was charged with Impaired Driving.  The prosecutor withdrew the charge as the symptoms of impairment were very weak.  The defendant had not been charged with Over 80.

Terri S. - September 30th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Over 80.  The prosecutor recognized problems in his case.  After negotiations were concluded, it was agreed by all parties  that the prosecutor would withdraw the Over 80 charge and the defendant would plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act.

Greg B. - September 25th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  The charges were stayed (which is equivalent to a dismissal) as the judge held the matter took too long to get to trial and thereby infringed the defendant's right to be tried within a reasonable time.

Nathan M. - September 15th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Over 80.  He was acquitted based on the inability of the prosecution to prove that he was the driver of the vehicle in question.

Sandra F. - August 27th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Refuse to Provide breath sample into breathalyzer.  On the second day for trial, a Crown witness who was required to attend did not.  Rather than seeking a further adjournment, the Crown agreed to withdraw the two criminal charges and allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under th Highway Traffic Act and she was allowed to maintain her driving privileges.

Sabrina I. - July 31st, 2008 - the Over 80 charge was withdrawn against this defendant.  I never learned why it was withdrawn nor did I ask.  In this business, you don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Kirk C. - July 17th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Over 80.  We were able to establish that the defendant's right to counselhad been infringed in very unusual circumstances.  The defendant was hard of hearing and it was established that the police failed to take sufficient measures to ensure that he could actually hear the advice from counsel.  As a result, the breath readings were excluded and the Over 80 charge was dismissed.

Kenneth U. - July 16th, 2008 - the Over 80 charge against the defendant was withdrawn after the defendant agreed to complete a safe driving remedial program.

Justin H. - July 15th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  The judge excluded the results of the breath readings as we were able to establish that the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest.  After this finding, the prosecutor agreed to withdraw the Impaired Driving charge and allow the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act.

Gilles M. - July 3rd, 2008 - the prosecutor withdrew Impaired and Over 80 charges against the defendant.  We were able to persuade the prosecutor that the arresting officer had infringed the defendant's right to consult with counsel.

John H. - June 25th, 2008 - defendant was acquitted of a charge of Refuse Roadside breath test.  He testified that he blew into the screening device to the best of his ability even though a reading was never registered.  The evidence raised a reasonable doubt in the judge's mind.

Michael S. - June 19th, 2008 - the defendant was acquitted of an Over 80 charge.  His evidence of consumption raised a reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge as to the accuracy of the breathalyzer results. 

Liam M. - June 5th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Over 80.  I was able to have the charge dismissed based on two frailties in the Crown’s case.  The first frailty was that the arresting officer neglected to tender evidence of the time of driving.  The second frailty was the breathalyzer technician failed to state the breathalyzer readings with the technical precision required to convict.  The accused had also been charged with failing to appear in court but the prosecution withdrew that charge for lack of evidence.

Douglas M. - May 28th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  I was able persuade the Court that the observations of the police officer that were consistent with impairment by alcohol were equally consistent with explanations provided in evidence by the accused.  For example, the police officer testified that he observed the accused to be unsteady on his feet but the accused testified that because of his advanced age he was less stable on his feet that he had been during his youth.  With respect to the Over 80 charge, I was able to persuade the judge that the accused’s evidence of how much he had to drink (an amount that, if correct, would have put him below the legal limit) was worthy of belief notwithstanding the fact that the breathalyzer readings tendered in evidence during the prosecution’s case put the accused above the legal limit.

Nancy N. & Dawn S.- May 15th, 2008 - both of  these defendants were charged with Over 80 after being stopped in the same spot check.  N.N.’s matter went to trial first.  I was able to elicit evidence from the arresting officer that his basis for obtaining grounds to arrest N.N. was faulty as he failed to wait a sufficient period of time after the last consumption of alcohol before administering a roadside screening test (the roadside screening test being the only basis for the arrest).  Once this evidence was adduced, not only did the prosecutor withdraw the charge  against N.N. but he agreed that the circumstances surrounding the arrest of D.S. was so similar that he withdrew the charge against D.S. without the matter even having to go to trial.

Lieu N.- May 8th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Refusing to provide a breath sample into a screening device.  I was able to persuade the court that the roadside screening device demand to blow issued by the arresting officer was unlawful for technical reasons and therefore the  charge was dismissed.  It is noteworthy that after dismissing the charge, the judge went on to comment that but for the technical defence he would most likely have made a finding that L.N. had intentionally not provided a breath sample and therefore he would have found her guilty of the offence.

Tadeusz F.- May 1st, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Impaired driving and Refusing to provide a breath  sample into a breathalyzer instrument.  Prior to the commencement of trial, the prosecutor withdrew the Impaired driving count for lack of evidence.  Ultimately, the judge dismissed the Refuse breathalyzer charge as the evidence of T. F. raised a reasonable doubt in his mind as to whether or not he was genuinely attempting to blow but simply unable due to physical incapacity.

Lauralino G. - April 25th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Impaired driving and Dangerous driving.  Although the factual allegations were rather serious, including the accused driving a transport truck the wrong way through a fast food drive thru lane and then crashing into a wall, I was able to persuade the prosecutor to reduce the charge to Careless Driving.  As part of the sentence the accused could only operate his motor vehicle for a period time for work purposes but this resolution allowed him to maintain his job. 

Chris C.- April 17th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Over 80.   I was able to elicit from the arresting officer evidence that established that the demand for breath samples was unlawful because of an unreasonable period of time that separated the arrest of C.C. and the reading of the breath demand.  Once this evidence was adduced, the prosecutor called no further evidence and invited the judge to dismiss the charge which he did.

Derek G.- April 16th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  The matter had to be adjourned on multiple occasions.  Ultimately, the prosecution agreed to allowing D.G. to plead guilty to Careless Driving with a probationary term that allowed him drive for work purposes only for a period of time.  This allowed D.G. to maintain his job.

Lliljan E. - April 11th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Over 80.  I was able to persuade the trial judge that the breathalyzer tests were not obtained “as soon as practicable” which is a requirement under the Criminal Code.  In other words, because of an unexplained delay between the time of the arrests and the administration of the breath tests, the judge dismissed the charge.

William H. - April 2nd, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Impaired, Over 80 and Fail to Remain at the scene of an accident.  I was able to persuade the prosecution to reduce the charges to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a brief 90 day suspension and a fine. As a result, W.H. was able to avoid a criminal record.

Emmanuel M. - March 14th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Over 80.  He testified as to his alcohol consumption which, if correct, would have put him below the legal limit at the time of driving.  Even though the Crown tendered evidence of breathalyzer readings that put the accused above the legal limit at the time of driving, the judge found the evidence of the accused to be sufficiently credible as to raise a reasonable doubt about his guilt and the charge was dismissed.

Piotr G. - March 12th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Refusing a breathalyzer test.  The prosecutor withdrew the impaired driving charge as they did not have a witness that was able to testify that the defendant was operating his motor vehicle.   the Crown did proceed with the refuse breathalyzer charge.  (the law provides that even if the Crown can not prove that the defendant was driving, so long as the police officer had reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the defendant was driving, he is entitled to make a breath demand and the defendant is required, by law, to comply with that demand.)  The refuse charge was dismissed by the judge as she found that the prosecutor had not proven that a lawful demand was made.   Although the officer testified that he did  make a breathalyzer demand, he provided no details about the wording of the demand.  This was sufficient to have that charge dismissed as well.

Boris M. - March 4th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with over 80.  He was acquitted by the trial judge as the Crown, while being able to prove he blew over the legal limit in the police station, was not able to prove  that he was over the legal limit at the time of driving.

Keith G.-  February 21st, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving.  I was able to persuade the prosecutor to reduce the charge to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act thereby avoiding a criminal record for K.G.

Jeffrey D. - February 20th, 2008 - the Over 80 charge was dismissed as the arresting officer conceded in evidence that he had not tested the screening device to ensure it was in proper working order before he used it on the defendant. 

Tyler W. - February 19th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Over 80.  Ultimately, the prosecution agreed to  allowing T.W. to plead guilty to the lesser offence of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act.  As a result, T.W. was able to avoid the imposition of a criminal record.

Clayton W. - February 14th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Over 80.  I was able to persuade the judge to dismiss the charge on the basis that the arresting officer improperly described the model number of the roadside screening device that was used to form the legal basis to arrest C.W. 

Daniel Y. - February 8th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80.  I was able to persuade the prosecutor to reduce the charge to Careless Driving thereby avoiding a criminal record for the accused. 

Terrence H. – February 4th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80.  Because of difficulties in the Crown’s case, I was able to persuade the prosecutor to allow the accused to plead guilty to Careless Driving for a fine and no driver’s licence suspension.  This was significant in T.H.’s case as he had a criminal record that included several convictions for impaired driving.  Had he been convicted of Impaired or Over 80 on this occasion, he would invariably have been sentenced to a period in jail and a lengthy driving prohibition.

Borka B. - January 24th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with being in care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired and being in care or control of a motor vehicle while being above the legal limit.  Although I conceded that at the time the police found B.B. in her motor vehicle, she was both impaired and above the legal limit, I was able to persuade the judge that she was not in “care or control of the motor vehicle” at the relevant time because of a lack of intention on her part to set the vehicle in motion.

Sayed D. - January 21st, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving.  I was able to persuade the prosecutor to reduce the charge to Careless Driving thereby avoiding a criminal record for the accused.

Jodi T. - January 15th, 2008  -  the defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  Because of difficulties in the Crown’s case, I was able to persuade the Crown to allow J.T. to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act thus avoiding a criminal record and licence suspension for the accused.

Jeffrey B. - January 14th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with over 80. The prosecutor agreed to withdraw the charge after I was able to persuade him that no lawful breath demand had been made to  the defendant before he provided his breath samples.

Anthony D. - January 8th, 2008 - the defendant was charged with Impaired driving and Dangerous driving.  Much of the prosecution evidence hinged on the reliability of a tow truck driver who had been following A.D. prior to the arrival of the police.  Through cross examination of the tow truck driver that lasted most of the day, I was able to persuade the trial judge that his evidence was wholly unreliable.  As a result, the judge dismissed both charges against A.D.

M.S. - in this case, the defendant was charged with failing to provide a sample into a breathalyzer.  Through effective cross examination, the breathalyzer technician conceded that it did not appear to him that the accused was intentionally not providing a breath sample but was genuinely having difficulty.  Based on this concession, the prosecutor invited the judge to dismiss the charge and he did so.

 

 

 

 

 

Sherry S. - January 27th, 2009 - The defendant was charged with impaired driving and over 80.  After trial, the judge ruled  that the prosecution had not proven the identity of the defendant as the driver of the motor vehicle beyond a reasonable doubt and both charges were dismissed.