Shayne B. – June 20 – The defendant was charged with Impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and Iver 80 care or control of a motor vehicle as well as two breaches of custody release orders. I was able to persuade the prosecutor that he could not prove the care or control charges as the defendant was not driving the vehicle in question although he was drunk and in the vehicle when found by police. As a result, the defendant pled guilty to the two breaches for which he received two conditional discharges. Discharges are not considered to be either convictions or a criminal record in Canadian law. Once my client entered his guilty pleas to the two breaches, the prosecutor withdrew both care or control charges.

 

Kevin W. – June 17 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The matter proceeded to trial. After calling one witness, it became apparent to the prosecutor that he would not be able to prove that the defendant was driving the vehicle in question at the time in question. He asked the judge to stay proceedings. A stay is equivalent in law to a withdrawal of the charges.

 

Ravinder S. – June 12 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The matter had already been adjourned once and there was a reasonable prospect the matter would not be reached on the second dates set for trial. As a result, an offer was made by the prosecutor which we accepted. Specifically, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. Once he entered a guilty plea to that traffic offence, the criminal charge of Over 80 was withdrawn by the prosecutor.



Ian G. – June 6 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving by drug and Possession of marijuana. During the trial, I was able to expose several weaknesses in the prosecutor’s case including a flagrant breach of the defendant’s right to counsel. As a result of concerns about the viability of their case, a resolution was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. Once a guilty plea was entered to this traffic offence, both criminal charges were withdrawn by the prosecutor.

Andrew H. – June 6 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Prior to trial, I served a notice of constitutional argument on the prosecutor alleging that a statement made by the defendant at the roadside was inadmissible at trial and without that statement, the police had no grounds to arrest him. Because of concerns the prosecutor had about the viability of their case based on this argument, an offer was made which we accepted. Specifically, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic cat offence of Careless Driving. Once he entered a guilty plea to this traffic offence, both criminal charges were withdrawn by the prosecutor.

Bobby K. – June 5 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Refusing to take a breathalyzer test. Both charges were dismissed. Prior to trial, I served a notice of constitutional argument on the prosecutor arguing that my client’s right to counsel was infringed in circumstances where are the police failed to give the defendant an opportunity to look up a private lawyer when his lawyer of choice could not be contacted. During the trial, the prosecutor conceded they could not prove the refuse charge because of this argument and invited the judge to dismiss the charge which he did. Once all the evidence was in, I argued that there was insufficient proof that the defendant was impaired by alcohol at the time of driving. The judge agreed and dismissed the impaired driving charge.

 

 

 

Eric W. – May 29 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Prior to trial, I served a notice of constitutional argument on the prosecutor. Because of concerns the prosecutor had with the viability of their case based on these arguments, we were offered a resolution that we accepted. Specifically, 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. Once the guilty plea was entered by the defendant to this traffic offence, both criminal charges were withdrawn by the prosecutor.

  

Michael V. – May 15 – The defendant was charged 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 had been infringed on this occasion and that the violation was serious enough to justify an exclusion of the breath readings.  The trial judge also accepted my contention that the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was impaired by alcohol at the time of driving.

 

Shayne B. – May14 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Care or Control of a motor vehicle and Over 80 Care or Control of a motor vehicle.  Both charges were dismissed after a trial.  The trial judge accepted my argument that although the defendant was impaired by alcohol and over the legal limit while seated in his vehicle, the defendant had no intention of operating his motor vehicle on this occasion nor did he pose a realistic risk that he might change his mind and drive.

 

Tyler O. – May 13 – The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The charge was dismissed after trial.   The trial judge agreed with  my argument that the defendant had been unlawfully kept in custody after the completion of the investigation.  As a result of this finding, the trial judge ruled that the breath readings should be excluded from evidence.

 

Mohamed D. – May 8 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Care or Control of a motor vehicle and Over 80 Care or Control of a motor vehicle.  Both charges were dismissed after a trial.  The trial judge accepted my argument that although the defendant was impaired by alcohol and over the legal limit while seated in his vehicle, the defendant had no intention of operating his motor vehicle on this occasion nor did he pose a realistic risk that he might change his mind and drive.

 

An H. – May 2 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  Both charges were dismissed after a trial.  The judge agreed with my argument that the arresting officer lacked sufficient grounds to justify the arrest of the defendant and that this should result in an exclusion from evidence of the breath readings.  The judge also agreed with my argument that the symptoms of impairment testified to by police were not sufficient to justify a finding of guilt on the Impaired Driving charge.

 

Zackary C. – May 1 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  Due to difficulties the prosecution had regarding the availability of necessary witnesses, 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 no suspension of his driving privileges.  Once the plea to Careless Driving was entered by the defendant, the prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.

 

William M. – April 15 – The defendant was charged with Over 80.  Prior to trial, I advanced a motion arguing that the defendant’s right to counsel was infringed in circumstances where a specific request by him to contact counsel of choice was ignored by police.  The prosecutor was concerned enough about the argument that he agreed to a resolution of the 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 was a particularly good resolution for this defendant as he had a previous conviction for drinking and driving and would have faced a jail sentence and a lengthy driving suspension had he been convicted of Over 80 on this occasion.  Once the guilty plea to Careless Driving was entered by the defendant, the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge.

 

Manuel F. – April 12 – The defendant was charged with Over 80.   The charge was dismissed after a trial. The trial judge agreed with my argument that the prosecutor had led insufficient evidence that the breath testing instrument that measured the blood alcohol concentration of the defendant was in proper working order.

 

Jeffery S. – April 11 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.   After pointing out difficulties the prosecutor would have in proving the charges due to alleged violations of the defendant’s Charter rights, the defendant was offered a resolution whereby he would plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and 12 months’ probation.  After the defendant pled guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence, the prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.

 

Mallory V. – April 8 – The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The charge was dismissed after a trial. The trial judge agreed with my argument that the prosecutor had led insufficient evidence that the breath testing instrument that measured the blood alcohol concentration of the defendant was in proper working order.

 

Wayne M. – April 8 – The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The charge was dismissed after a trial. The trial judge agreed with my argument that the prosecutor had led insufficient evidence that the breath testing instrument that measured the blood alcohol concentration of the defendant was in proper working order.

 

Milan B. – April 3 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Refusing to Provide a breath sample.  It was apparent part way through the trial that I had several issues I could potentially argue for both charges that were before the court.  For example, there was a language barrier that would have been relevant to the refuse charge and the officers who testified at trial did not present as particularly credible witnesses on the impaired driving charge.  During the recess in the proceedings, I had discussions with the prosecutor and we were able to reach a resolution.  Specifically, the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal, Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and no suspension of his driving privileges. Once the defendant entered his guilty plea to this charge, both criminal charges were dismissed.

 

 

 

Paul S. – March 29 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80.  After presenting the defendant’s personal circumstances to the prosecutor and pointing out the low value of the readings, a resolution was agreed to whereby he would plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and 12 months’ probation. After the defendant pled guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence, the prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.

 


Justin M. – March 28 -The defendant was charged with Over 80.  After pointing out difficulties the prosecutor would have in proving the charge, the defendant was offered a resolution whereby he would plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and 12 months’ probation. After the defendant pled guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.

 

 

Adam H. – March 6 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. One of the investigating officers was not available on the trial date because of illness. Rather than the prosecutor requesting an adjournment of the case, a settlement was reached whereby 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 resolution not only allowed the defendant to keep driving but it avoided a criminal record for him. Once the defendant entered his guilty plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.

 

 

Tammy M – Feb. 28 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Due to difficulties the prosecutor saw in proving the charge, the defendant was offered a resolution whereby she would plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless driving for a fine and 12 months’ probation. After the defendant pled guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.

 

 

Tessa S. – Jan. 28 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. The trial judge accepted my argument that the prosecutor had not proven that the defendant was impaired at the time of driving. The trial judge also accepted my argument that the manner in which evidence of the breath readings were presented at trial was not lawful and that, therefore there was no admissible evidence of breath readings before the court.

 

 

Irwin N. – Jan. 15 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. A crucial police witness was not available to testify on the trial date and would likely not have been available to testify in the foreseeable future. As a result, the prosecutor withdrew both charges.

 

 

Sean H. – Jan. 11 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. On the date of trial, the prosecutor sought an adjournment as one of his witnesses had taken ill. I opposed the request for adjournment on the basis that the defence had been given no prior notice that the Crown would be seeking an adjournment even though the officer became ill well before the trial date. The judge agreed with my argument and denied the adjournment request of the prosecutor. As a result, the prosecutor withdrew both charges.

 

 

Tim K. – Jan. 7 The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both chargers were dismissed after a trial. The trial judge accepted my argument that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant was impaired at the time of driving. The trial judge also accepted my argument that the prosecution had not proven that the defendant was served prior to trial with the certificate of analysis, the document that contains the breath readings and the document that the prosecutor was relying upon to prove the over 80 charge. Proof of service of this document prior to trial is a requirement of the Criminal Code.

 

 

William J. – Jan. 7 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. The trial judge accepted my argument that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant was impaired at the time of driving. The trial judge also accepted my argument that the prosecution had not proven that the breath tests were taken “as soon as practicable”, a requirement of the Criminal Code.