Matthew B. – March 28 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.
The matter proceeded to trial. I argued that the prosecution’s case fell short on the Over 80 charge as the time of driving (an essential component to an Over 80 charge) had not been proven. I also argued that the arresting officer relied upon inadmissible evidence in order to form his grounds to arrest the defendant and ultimately seize breath samples from him. The judge agreed with both of these arguments. I also argued that the evidence of one civilian witness and 2 police witnesses fell short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol. The judge agreed. The trial judge dismissed both charges.

 

Sean L. – March 22 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. During the first day of trial, cracks began to appear in the case for the Prosecutor surrounding the evidence of the defendant’s state of sobriety and blood alcohol level at the time of driving even though there was ample evidence of impairment and excess blood alcohol subsequent to driving. As a result of concerns about their case, the Prosecutor agreed to a resolution prior to the second day of trial. Specifically, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a term that he not operate a vehicle for 90 days and only with an ignition interlock installed in his vehicle for 9 months thereafter. This resolution avoided a criminal record, a high priority for this young defendant. After this plea was entered, the criminal charges of Impaired Driving and Over 80 were withdrawn by the Prosecutor.

 

Cedric  S. – March 22 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The matter went to trial. At the end of the trial I argued that the Prosecutor had not led admissible evidence of the breath readings because of issues related to the recollection of the breathalyzer technician. The trial judge agreed that the evidence of the technician was insufficient to make out the case for the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge dismissed the charge.

 

Navdeep J. – March 12 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The video evidence revealed a potential infringement of the defendant’s right to counsel. As a result of concerns the Prosecutor had regarding whether this argument might succeed, a resolution was reached prior to trial. Specifically, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a requirement that he drive with an ignition interlock device in his car for 11 months. After this plea was entered, the criminal charge of Over 80 cwas withdrawn by the prosecutor.

 

Raymond M. – March 7 – The defendant was charged with Over 80.  Prior to trial, I served a constitutional argument on the prosecutor arguing that the defendant’s right to counsel had been infringed because a police officer interrupted the defendant’s consultation with counsel and cut the conversation short.  I argued that this was an egregious breach of the defendant’s right to counsel.  The prosecutor determined that they would not be able to argue that this breach was not serious enough to justify an exclusion of the readings.  The Over 80 charge was withdrawn.  This was of significant importance to the defendant as he had a recent previous conviction for the same offence and had he been convicted again, he would have been sentenced to a period of time in jail and a minimum 3 year suspension of his driving privileges.

 

Charles R. – March 6 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Care or Control of a Motor Vehicle and Over 80 Care or Control of a Motor Vehicle.  This matter proceeded to trial.  The defendant had driven to a bar and had been drinking at the bar. He became significantly impaired by alcohol, however, prior to attending the bar, he had made arrangements for a friend of his to pick him up after last call so that the defendant didn’t have to drive home while impaired.  Prior to last call, the defendant went to his vehicle because of fatigue. He turned the vehicle on for heat and then went to sleep.  Before his friend attended to pick him up, the police came and the defendant was arrested for the 2 offences noted above.  The trial judge accepted the defendant’s evidence that he had no intention of driving and was merely using his car as a place to sleep and wait for his friend to attend.  The trial judge dismissed both charges.

 

Ramie G. – March 5 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  The defendant was involved in a single motor vehicle accident.  Prior to trial, I was able to persuade the prosecutor that there would have been difficulties in the prosecutor proving the time of driving which is always an essential matter for the prosecutor to prove.  As a result of discussions with the prosecutor, a resolution was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for an $800 fine and no suspension of his driving privileges.  The Impaired Driving and Over 80 charges were withdrawn.

 

Manohar M. – March 2- The defendant was charged with Over 80. The matter proceeded to trial.  I argued that the arresting officer used the roadside breath testing device improperly by not ensuring the result of the test would be accurate.  The fail on the roadside test was the only basis upon which the defendant was arrested and returned to a police station for further breath samples.  The trial judge accepted this argument and excluded the results of the breath readings.  There was no other evidence proving the charge against the defendant.  The trial judge dismissed the charge.

 

Zubair M. – Feb. 26 – The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The matter proceeded to trial. I argued at trial that the defendant’s right to counsel was infringed because he had been misinformed by one of the arresting officers about who he was entitled to  contact for legal advice.  The judge accepted this argument and excluded the results of the breath readings from evidence. The trial judge dismissed the Over 80 charge.

 

Kim M. – Feb. 22 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  Had the matter proceeded to trial, there would have been issues argued relating to the state of mind of the defendant at the time of driving.  After lengthy negotiations with the Crown, a resolution was reached by which the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a 1 year suspension of her driving privileges in Ontario.  As the defendant lived in the United States, this suspension would not affect her.  The Impaired Driving and Over 80 charges were withdrawn.

 

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.