My client was charged with Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample at the side of the road.  The police stopped M.F.’s vehicle after seeing it mount the curb as it made a turn.  The police could smell alcohol on my client’s breath and demanded that he do a roadside breath test.  My client made several attempts to provide a sample but none registered and the officer thought my client was screwing around and arrested him for Refuse.  He was then taken to the police station where the police held him for several hours because they thought he was being belligerent.  Prior to the trial, I filed an Charter application alleging that my client’s right to be free from arbitrary detention was violated because there was no need for him to be taken to the police station and held for several hours.  On the morning of trial, I spoke to the Crown who decided not to oppose my application and stayed the charge against my client.  For my client, this result meant the same thing as an acquittal or a withdrawal of the charge.

My client was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The police observed my client driving on the 401 for several minutes and video recorded it with a camera installed in their police cruiser. R.J., who had difficulty understanding English was eventually stopped and immediately arrested for Impaired Driving. He was taken to the police station where he blew over the legal limit and was additionally charged with Over 80. I filed a Charter application alleging that my client’s right to counsel was violated as he was not put in touch with a lawyer who could speak his language. After I completed my cross-examinations of the investigating officers, I established that the police were clearly having difficulty communicating with my client and that he was not communicated his rights in a way he could properly understand. My cross-examination of the arresting officer also revealed that his recollection of what had occurred that night was very limited. As a result, the Crown agreed to accept a plea to Careless Driving under the HTA instead of proceeding with the drinking and driving charges. My client was more than happy to take the deal.

My client was charged with Dangerous Driving and Flight from Police.  It was alleged that N.M. was riding a motor cycle at more than 190 km/hr on the 404 and that when a police cruiser attempted to pull him over at a stop light on an exit ramp, N.M., took off at extremely high speeds and got away.  The police got the license plate of the bike and interviewed the registered owner who claimed that my client was in possession of the bike at the time of the incident and that my client had confessed to him everything that the police alleged had occurred.  At trial, after my cross-examination of the owner of the bike, I exposed several inconsistencies between what the witness had told the police in a video recorded interview and his testimony at trial.  Ultimately the Crown invited the judge to dismiss the charges against my client.

The police received a call regarding a severely damaged vehicle located at the side of a quite stretch of highway, partially in a live lane.  When police arrive, they found D.B alone in the vehicle and fast asleep in the passenger seat.  The police could see that my client was obviously intoxicated and arrested him for Impaired Care or Control.  He was taken to the police station where he was charged with Over 80 as well after blowing well over the legal limit. At trial I successfully argued that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that my client was in care or control of the vehicle and he was acquitted.

F.M. contacted me after receiving a call from police who were investigating an incident in which a vehicle registered in his name hit a parked car late at night.  Both vehicles sustained serious damage and F.M.’s vehicle was then driven to his home.  The police attended the home shortly after the accident occurred and knocked on the door but no one answered.  They suspected that F.M. had been driving impaired and had not remained on the scene of the accident in order to avoid being charged.  The following day, I attended the police station with my client and the police tried to get him to give a statement.  My client exercised his right to silence and the police subsequently charged him with Failing to Remain at the Scene of a Collision (7 demerit points), Careless Driving (6 demerit points) and Operate Unsafe Motor Vehicle, all under the Highway Traffic Act.  At Provincial Offences Court, I convinced the prosecutor that they would have a very difficult time proving that my client was the driver of the vehicle.  The prosecutor ultimately agreed to withdraw the Fail to Remain and the Careless Driving and my client entered a guilty plea to the Operate Unsafe Motor Vehicle.  He received a fine and no demerit points.

My client was charged with Drive Over 80.  The police received a call from the doorman of a bar that had turned my client and a couple of his friends away, believing they were drunk.  The doorman had given the police the license plate number of my client’s vehicle and a few minutes later my client was stopped.  He failed the breath test at the side of the road and was taken to the police station where he registered breath readings of 180.  My client was acquitted at trial after I successfully argued that the breath technician’s testimony did not prove that one of the technical requirements to prove the charge had been satisfied.

My client was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The allegations included high breath test results and what was described as very bad driving. At trial, after the crown had completed their case and I had cross-examined the officers, it was revealed that a video taken of my client at the police station had been recorded but not disclosed to me despite my previous requests.  Furthermore, in my cross-examination of the witness who observed the driving, it was revealed that the driving was not as bad as the allegations had suggested and that the reliability and credibility of this witness was questionable. Finally, I caught on to a technical defect in the breath technician’s evidence that would have resulted in a conviction on the Over 80 charge being an impossibility. Ultimately, the Crown agreed to my client pleading guilty to Careless Driving under the HTA and thus avoiding a criminal record and the serious consequences that accompany a drinking and driving conviction.

My client had been charged with Refuse to Provide a Breath Sample at the side of the road. I argued that the officer’s demand that my client provide breath samples was defective and that the judge should have doubts concerning the reliability of the officer’s testimony.  The judge agreed and my client was acquitted.

My client was charged with Drive Over 80.  Prior to the trial, I filed a Charter Application alleging that my client’s right to a trial within a reasonable under section 11(b) had been infringed. The likelihood of a judicial stay of my client’s charge as a result of the delay was borderline considering the length of the delay and the nature of the prejudice my client suffered as a result.  On the morning of trial, I had discussions with the Crown Attorney who agree to my client entering a guilty plea to Careless Driving under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act. This is a non-criminal charge that results in no criminal record or mandatory license suspension.

My client had been charged with Impaired Driving, Over 80 and Dangerous Driving stemming from an incident in which he had driven into a house.  His breath tests revealed that his Blood Alcohol Concentration was well over the legal limit. My client had made several statements on the scene both to the residents of the home and to the police, even after he was advised of his rights to counsel and cautioned that he did not have to say anything.  My client admitted several times that he had too much to drink and should not have been driving.  To make matters worse, my client could not remember what had happened.  On the day of trial I convinced the Crown to pull the Impaired Driving and Over 80 charges in return for my client pleading guilty to the Dangerous Driving charge.  My client was fined and although his driver’s license was suspended automatically by the Ministry of Transportation, the judge declined to make a separate Order prohibiting him from driving anywhere in Canada.  Because my client was not found guilty of the drinking and driving related charges, he avoided the requirements of having to take Ontario’s Remedial Measures Back on Track Program  and of having an ignition interlock device installed in any vehicle he drove for the year after he got his license back.  These requirements would both involve significant monetary expenditures.  My client also likely avoided significant increases in his insurance premiums.

My client was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80 stemming from a single motor vehicle accident in which my client drove off the road into a ditch. It turned out that the Crown had failed to subpoena one of their witnesses and on the day of trial this witness did not show up. I knew that the Crown could have proven their case without this particular witness but for some reason, the Crown considered this witness to be crucial to their case and requested an adjournment from the judge. I argued that my client was prepared to have his case tried that day, that there was no excuse for the Crown and police neglecting to serve this witness and that my client would be severely prejudiced by having to come back on some future date to have his case heard. The judge agreed and denied the adjournment request. The Crown subsequently withdrew the case against my client.

My client was charged with Impaired Care or Control and Over 80.  After the trial began and the arresting officer testified, I convinced the Crown that they had significant problems with their case.  The Crown subsequently agreed to drop the drinking and driving charges and offered my client a plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act instead.  I pointed out to the Crown that my client had not been driving and therefore could not enter a plea to Careless Driving.  Ultimately the Crown agreed to having my client enter a guilty plea to being Intoxicated in a Public Place contrary to the Ontario Liquor Licence Act.