Jessica D. – Feb 21- The defendant was charged with Over 80. During the trial, it became apparent that the arresting officer had an inadequate knowledge of the operation of the roadside screening device. Other issues included a potentially unlawful arrest and uncertainty as to when the defendant had been operating her motor vehicle, as time of driving is always an essential piece of evidence in any Over 80 charge. At the lunch break, I had discussions with the Crown and was able to persuade her to withdraw the Over 80 charge in exchange for the defendant pleading guilty to the Highway Traffic Act charge of Careless Driving for a fine. This allowed the defendant to avoid a criminal record and maintain her driving privileges.
Vincent D. – Feb. 20 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. During the trial, the evidence revealed that the police made no attempt to contact the defendant’s counsel of choice. As well, the evidence of impairment was not significant. Because of these problems, the prosecutor came back into court after a recess and invited the trial judge to dismiss both charges. The trial judge dismissed both charges.
Ajay V. – Feb. 7 – The defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving. He fell asleep at the wheel and thereby caused an accident. During the trial, evidence was led that the defendant nodded off suddenly without any reason to know that this may have happened. For example, there was no evidence of the ingestion of drugs or alcohol nor was there evidence of the defendant having had a lack of sleep. After all the evidence had been heard, the prosecutor invited the judge to dismiss the charge as she fairly acknowledged that she had not proven her case beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge dismissed the charge.
Aimable H. – Jan 19 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and over 80. As a result of late disclosure of evidence, the prosecutor would not have been able to prove the over 80 charge. Although there were strong symptoms of impairment, the prosecutor still had sufficient concerns that a resolution was worked out. Specifically, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. He had to pay a fine and for six months could only drive for work purposes. Once this resolution was completed, the prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.
Sethuraman S. – Jan 18 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and refusing to take a breathalyzer test. I was able to convince the judge that the symptoms of impairment alleged by the police were not sufficient to prove that charge beyond a reasonable doubt. I was also able to convince the judge that the prosecutor did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant understood the breathalyzer demand as his mother tongue was not English. Both charges were dismissed by the trial judge.
Collin N. – Jan. 9 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving by drugs and Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. I was able to persuade the trial judge that the evidence of impairment was unreliable and that much of the evidence obtained by police had been obtained unlawfully. The trial judge dismissed the criminal charge and the prosecutor withdrew the Careless Driving charge.
Griffin L. – Jan. 3 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Prior to trial, I served a constitutional argument on the court and the prosecutor alleging that the defendant’s right to counsel had been infringed. On the date he was charged, the defendant requested to speak with his father for the purpose of getting him a lawyer. The police rejected his request and had the defendant speak to duty counsel. I was able to persuade the prosecutor that there was a reasonable prospect that the trial judge would dismiss the charge based on this argument. As a result, a resolution was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a brief suspension of his driving privileges. This resolution avoided a criminal record for the defendant who was a young male and could not afford a criminal conviction nor could he have been able to maintain his job were to have been given a lengthy driving suspension. Once this resolution was completed, the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge.