Janette S. – October 25 – The defendant was charge with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  Both charges were dismissed after a trial. The trial judge accepted my argument that the defendant’s right to counsel was infringed by police not giving her a reasonable opportunity to contact private counsel.  As a result of this finding, the judge excluded the evidence of the breath readings and dismissed the Over 80 charge.  He also accepted my argument that the defence had presented evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was impaired by alcohol on this occasion.  He also dismissed the Impaired Driving charge.

 

Daniel K. – October 23 – The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The readings were at the very low end although still above the legal limit.  As well, there were potential timing issues that could have cause difficulties for the prosecution.  As a result, a resolution was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving.  He received a fine of $1,000.00 and a 1 year period of probation whereby he was required to have no alcohol in his body whenever he was operating a motor vehicle.  Once the defendant entered his guilty plea to Careless Driving, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 criminal charge.

 

Joseph K. – September 20 – The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The charge was dismissed after a trial.  The trial judge accepted my argument that the prosecutor had not led any admissible evidence of the breath readings.  As the breath readings were the only evidence of the offence, the trial judge had no choice but to dismiss the charge.

 

Alyssa B. – September 17 – The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The charge was dismissed after trial.  The trial judge accepted my argument that the defendant’s  right to counsel had been infringed by police as they did not give her a reasonable opportunity to contact a private lawyer before she took her breath tests.  As a result of this finding, the judge excluded the evidence of the breath tests and dismissed the charge.

 

Steven B. – September 13 – The defendant was charged with Over 80.  On the trial date, it became apparent the matter would not be reached for trial because of other matters that took priority on the docket list.  The prosecutor had concerns that an adjournment might lead to a successful argument that the matter has taken too long to get to trial. As well, the breath readings were at the low end although still above the legal limit.  As a result of the above, a resolution was reached in this matter. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and no suspension of his driving privileges. This result also avoided a criminal record for the defendant.  Once the defendant entered his guilty plea to Careless Driving, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 criminal charge.

 

Francis B. – Aug. 31 – The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The charge was dismissed by the trial judge after trial.  I argued that there was insufficient evidence the defendant was above the legal limit at the time of driving.  The trial judge agreed with this submission.

 

James A. – Aug. 30 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  I served a motion on the prosecutor arguing that the arresting officer lacked sufficient grounds to arrest the defendant and demand breath samples from him.  Because of concerns the prosecutor had about their case, a resolution was reached before trial.  The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. He received a fine and a 12 month Provincial Offences Act probation order.  Upon entering the guilty plea to this offence, the prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.

 

Amber G. – Aug. 28 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Refusing to take a breathalyzer test.  During the trial, it became apparent that the arresting officer may have lacked the proper grounds in law to have made a lawful arrest and lawful breath demand of the defendant.  During a recess in the trial, I held discussions with the prosecutor and we reached a resolution of the case.  The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a 1 year period of probation that included a term that she only drive a motor vehicle that is equipped with an ignition interlock device.  The defendant readily accepted this resolution.  Upon entering her guilty plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving, the prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.

 

J.S. – Aug. 23 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving by Drug, Dangerous Driving, Possession of Marijuana and Driving with open alcohol in his vehicle.  There were several constitutional arguments that I was prepared to argue had the matter gone to trial.  These issues included whether a statement that formed the grounds for arrest of the defendant was admissible and the significance of a video of testing of the defendant by police having been erased by police and therefore not being provided to the defence.  Because of these issues, the prosecutor had concerns about whether they could prove the charges and agreed to a resolution of the case.  The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a 6 month suspension of his driver’s licence.  The defendant was a high school student thus avoiding a criminal record was a much bigger concern than the licence suspension.  He therefore readily accepted this resolution.  Upon entering the guilty plea to Careless Driving, the prosecutor withdrew all criminal charges as well as the open alcohol charge.

 

Luke A. – Aug. 9 – The defendant was charged with Over 80.  His readings were only barely above the legal limit.  There were no other aggravating features of the case and he had no criminal record.  As a result of all of these circumstances, a resolution was reached whereby the defendant pled guilty to the non-criminal Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving.  He received a fine and a 60 day licence suspension.  Upon entering this guilty plea, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.

 

Amber M. – Aug. 8 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  Although the defendant was clearly guilty of both of these charges, she was kept in custody after the investigation in deplorable circumstances.  This included not being provided pain medication even though she was agony from a broken foot she had suffered sometime previous to the incident.  On the day of trial, the prosecutor recognized they had witness issues and scheduling problems for the hearing of the trial.  Those problems in conjunction with the issue related to the defendant’s post-investigative detention led to a positive resolution of the case.  Specifically, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving.  She received a fine and 1 year suspension of her driver’s licence.  The suspension was not a concern for the defendant because she was a student, but a criminal record would have done serious damage to her future.  Therefore, the resolution was on that she readily accepted.  After the guilty plea was entered, the prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.

 

Sayf A. – July 11 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Over 80 and Fail to Stop after accident.  All  three charges are criminal offences.  Prior to trial, I served a lengthy constitutional motion on the prosecutor arguing that the defendant’s Charter rights had been infringed in several different ways.  Just prior to trial, the Crown prosecutor contacted me and advised that he had some concerns about the strength of his case based on the motion that I had served.  We negotiated and managed to resolve the matter in the following way.  The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a monetary fine and a period of probation where he was required to operate his motor vehicle with zero blood alcohol concentration.  Once this guilty plea was the Crown prosecutor withdrew all three criminal charges.  This resolution avoided a criminal record for the defendant and any suspension of his driving privileges.

 

Alicia W. – July 3 – The defendant was charged with Over 80.  Her readings were only slightly above the legal limit.  There was also two potential constitutional arguments that could well have resulted in an exclusion of the breath readings were the matter to proceed to trial.  After extensive negotiations with the Crown, it was agreed that the matter would be withdrawn if the defendant made a $500 charitable donation.  The defendant did make such donation and provided proof to the Crown.  The Crown withdrew the charge.

 

Leo M. – June 29 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  The matter proceeded to trial.  I convinced the judge that the evidence of impairment was insufficient to meet the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  I also convinced the judge that the defendant’s right to counsel had been infringed by the police on the date in question.  I also convinced the judge that the said infringement justified from exclusion the evidence of the breathalyzer results which were above the legal limit.  As a result of the judge’s reasonable doubt on the impaired charge and his exclusion of the breath readings, the trial judge dismissed both charges.

 

Gary R. – June 28 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.   The matter proceeded to trial.  I was able to convince the judge that there was no admissible evidence that the defendant was the driver of the motor vehicle at the time in question.  The trial judge dismissed both charges.

 

Petar Z. – June 4 – The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The charge was dismissed after a trial.  The prosecutor attempted to rely upon a certificate in order to prove the breath readings.  I was able to convince the judge that the prosecutor had not fulfilled certain statutory requirements that allowed the certificate to be properly before the court.  As a result of this finding the trial judge dismissed the charge.

 

Jason D. – June 4 – The defendant was charged with Over 80.  It was apparent during the early stages of the proceedings that the prosecution would have difficulty proving their case. It was apparent that the arresting officer did not use the roadside screening device properly prior to the initial arrest of the defendant. As a result of this difficulty, 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 period of probation the only term being that for 1 year he could not have any alcohol in his system while driving a motor vehicle.  Upon the defendant entering his plea to Careless Driving, the Over 80 charge was withdrawn.

 

Jey G. – May 22 – The defendant was charged with Over 80 and Obstruct Police.  The readings were only slightly above the legal limit.  The Obstruct Police charge came from the defendant initially identifying himself as his brother.  Because of the low readings, at an early stage of the proceedings, a resolution was reached.  The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a 12 month suspension of his driving privileges.  In return for this plea, both criminal charges were withdrawn.

 

Amna S. – May 7 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  This was a young lady whose only concern was to avoid a criminal conviction as it would have been seriously detrimental to her future job prospects.  After all the evidence was in, the prosecutor and I made oral submissions on a portion of the case but left further submissions pending the ruling of the trial judge on the arguments that we did make.  Based on the ruling of the trial judge after our initial arguments were made, the prosecutor had sufficient concerns about whether they would get a conviction on either criminal charge that a resolution was reached.  Specifically, 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.  This was agreed to by the defendant because of her priorities going into the trial as noted here-above.  Once the defendant entered a guilty plea to the Careless Driving charge, both criminal charges were withdrawn.

 

Rob S. – May 3 – The defendant was charged with Refusal to Provide a Sample into a roadside screening device.  The judge dismissed the charge after a trial.  I was able to convince the judge that the arresting officer lacked the proper grounds in law to have made the screening device demand in the first place.  Thus, the refusal to take the test by the defendant was deemed not to be unlawful because of the unlawfulness of the demand, itself.

 

Jordan R. – April 30 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  Prior to trial, I served a constitutional argument on the prosecutor alleging that the defendant’s right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure had been infringed due to a lack of grounds for arrest.  The prosecutor had sufficient concerns about the prospects of success for this argument that an offer was made to the defendant that was accepted by him.  Specifically, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and in return for this plea, the prosecutor agreed to withdraw both criminal charges.  This resolution avoided a criminal conviction for the defendant and allowed him to maintain his driving privileges.  Once the defendant entered his plea to Careless Driving, both criminal charges were withdrawn.

 

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.

Please note that past results are not necessarily indicative of future results.
Outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.