OFFICE LOCATIONS
1-800-799-0899 (905) 456-1053
Brampton
2 County Court Blvd., Suite 201, Brampton, Ontario L6W 3W8
Mississauga
914 Burnhamthorpe Road West, 2nd Floor, Mississauga, Ontario L5C 2S3
Etobicoke
4214 Dundas Street West, Suite 207, Etobicoke, Ontario M8X 1Y6
St. Catharines - Niagara
St. Catharines 58 Ontario Street, St. Catharines, Ontario L2R 5J4
Orangeville
239 Broadway, Unit 3BOrangeville, Ontario L9W 1K4
Hanover
443 - 14th Avenue, Hanover, Ontario N4N 2Y3.
Information Submission Form
In order to assess your chances of success at trial, please complete the following confidential Impaired Driving Questionnaire. Although not all questions may apply to your case, we do ask that you complete as many of the fields as possible to better help us understand your situation. (Fields marked with * indicated required information)
Once submitted, our office will contact you to setup a no obligation, confidential, no fee interview.
Stunt Driving
Stunt Driving Offence - Ontario Lawyer Brian Starkman Specialized Legal Team
Although not a Criminal charge, Stunt Driving has been controversial legislation since its inception. In the case of Regina v. Raham, I successfully argued that the Stunt Driving provision is unconstitutional. I have posted the text of the decision as well as some of the media coverage of the case.
Regina v. Raham Stunt driving
Lawyer Brian Starkman (5 offices in Ontario)

Fast and furious
Do street racing laws actually violate the Charter of Rights?
If nothing else, Ontario’s new “street racing” law has made for some amusing police blotter. There was that heavy-footed firefighter who had his emergency vehicle impounded for seven days (he was off-duty when a North Bay cop clocked him at 70 km/h over the limit). Another driver nabbed in the same part of the province also lost his wheels for a week—as did the speeding tow truck driver who came to impound the car. And then, of course, there was Antonio Talarico, the 26-year-old who made headlines across the country last month when his Infiniti G35 was spotted tearing down a Toronto highway at a whopping 250 km/h. His first words after being pulled over? “I’m sorry.”
'Stunt-driving granny' surprised by ruling
STEVE RUSSELL/TORONTO STAR
Jane Raham, 62, seen at her home in Oakville, said she accelerated because she is petrified of being caught in a tractor-trailer's blind spot. (Sept. 9, 2009)
Oakville woman no legal maverick, she says
September 12, 2009
Nick Aveling
TORSTAR NEWS SERVICE
There are a few things Jane Raham, alter ego "stunt-driving granny," would like to make perfectly clear.
First and foremost, she is not a legal maverick. It was never, repeat never, her intention to "take on the law," as some media outlets have suggested. "This granny did not, and would not, even though I felt a great sense of injustice," the 62-year-old woman said yesterday.
Raham found herself at the centre of a landmark legal ruling earlier this week, after an Ontario Court judge overturned her guilty verdict and ruled a section of the province's stunt driving law is unconstitutional. She had been charged under the law for passing a truck near Kaladar at more than 50 km/h past the limit – the speed at which drivers receive an automatic conviction.
As happy as she is, Raham said she can't take credit for the decision. That belongs entirely to a paralegal association, retained by Raham to help guide her through the court process, and lawyer Brian Starkman.
"The paralegal said the association really wanted to appeal this case because they thought the law was written badly," said Raham. "I said, `You can appeal it, but I'm going to pay the fine.' Based on what had happened, I had no hope that there was going to be any room to manoeuvre there."
Enter Starkman.
According to court documents, Raham's paralegal filed a motion that included the lawyer's submissions from a similar case. Fearing the paralegal was in over his head, Justice G.J. Griffin invited Starkman to take on the appeal.
Ten months later, Raham received a call from her paralegal, who congratulated her for making "provincial history."
"I said, `What?'"
Raham hadn't paid Starkman a cent; he did it for free. Nor had she heard from him until after the appeal was won.
"The law defines stunt driving in several different ways," Starkman said. "One of them is driving a car while you're not seated in the driver's seat. I'd say that's a pretty good definition of stunt driving.
"But why should driving 50 (km/h) above the speed limit be stunt driving? It's speeding. There's another section that deals with speeding, and it already includes penalties for going 50 past the limit and more."
At this point, what worries Raham even more than the stunt driving law is the lack of regulation around impound lots in Ontario, where private operators are free to charge what they please.
She said she was quoted a fee of $100 a day, a price she challenged after a local taxi driver told her it was far above average.
In the end, said Raham, she paid a total of $588 over the course of a week. The cost was knocked off the $2,000 fine she paid before the LPA launched its appeal. "If the municipality has enlisted operations to (impound vehicles), why aren't they regulated?" she asked.
Here are some internet articles about the case;