Kenneth J. – Jan. 14 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  Close to the trial date, it became apparent that the arresting officer would not be available for court for medical reasons.  Because of concerns the prosecutor had of how an adjournment may infringe the defendant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time, an agreement 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 where the defendant could only operate his motor vehicle for work purposes for six months after which he would be entitled to operate his motor vehicle for any purpose.  After the plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act was entered the prosecutor withdrew the Impaired and Over 80 charges.

 

Danuta L. – Jan. 9 – The defendant was charged with Refuse to Comply with a Drug Recognition Evaluation.  The prosecutor had to seek an adjournment of the trial dates that were set on more than one occasion. Because of concerns the prosecutor had of how the adjournments may infringe the defendant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time, an agreement was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving  for a $1,000 fine and 12 month probation order whereby she could only operate her motor vehicle with no alcohol in her system and complete the Back on Track program. After the plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act was entered the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge of Refuse to Comply with a Drug Recognition Evaluation. 

 

Ryan – K. – Jan. 2 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Refuse Breathalyzer and Dangerous Driving.  All three of these charges were dismissed after a trial.  The trial judge accepted my contention that the prosecutor had led insufficient evidence to prove that the driving on this occasion met the legal definition of “dangerous” even though there was a serious one-car collision involving the defendant.  The trial judge also accepted my argument that because of the serious injuries suffered by the defendant, it was impossible to conclude that he was impaired by alcohol on this occasion or that he wilfully refused to provide breath samples.