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.
