SUCCESSES

DRINKING AND DRIVING CASES

Impaired Driving, Driving Over 80 and Refusing a Breath Sample

R. v. C.T.
Client was charged with impaired driving and driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. The Client’s application for a stay of proceedings due to a breach of his right to a speedy trial was allowed.

R. v. J.V.
Client was charged with driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. The Client’s application for a stay of proceedings due to a breach of his right to a speedy trial was allowed.

R. v. N.S.
Client was charged with driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level and possession of cocaine. The client was strip searched at the police station. The trial judge found that because the door was left ajar and the client was left completely naked during the search his rights were violated. A stay of proceedings ensued.

R. v. P.S.
Client was charged with driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. The Client could not speak fluent English. Counsel argued his right to counsel in his own language (Tamil) had been violated. The trial judge agreed. The breath readings were excluded leaving the Crown with no further evidence.

R. v. L.A.
Client was charged with driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. Counsel brought an application arguing there was a significant delay in bringing the roadside screening device to the scene. The Crown agreed to withdraw the charge on the trial date. The Client plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine. He avoided getting a criminal record and kept his driver’s license.

R. v. R. D.
Client was charged with impaired driving and driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. He hit a parked car in his neighbourhood and fled the scene. He was passed out on his lawn when the police arrived on scene. Counsel argued that the client was subjected to an illegal strip search at the police station. The judge agreed that the Client’s rights were breached and that the strip search was unwarranted. A stay of proceedings ensued.

R. v. T.S.
Client was charged with impaired driving and driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. He was involved in an accident and his breath readings were more than three times the legal limit. The charge was withdrawn on the trial date by the Crown.

R. v. G.P.
Client was charged with impaired driving and driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. The Crown failed to provide disclosure of maintenance records of the breath machine to counsel in a timely fashion. The case had to be postponed and an early trial date could not be secured. As a result, the charges were withdrawn by the Crown on the trial date. The Client plead guilty to a charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine. He kept his driver’s license and avoided getting a criminal record.

R. v. D.M.
The Client was charged with Refusing to Provide a Sample into an Approved Screening Device. Counsel insisted that the Crown disclose all the relevant evidence in the case. The Crown was unable to provide all the relevant evidence because it had been lost. The charge was withdrawn on a trial date due to lost evidence.

R. v. T.B.
The Client was charged with Refusing to Provide a Sample into an Approved Screening Device. The charge was dismissed following counsel’s successful cross-examination of the arresting officer on the date of trial. After discussions with the Crown, the Client plead guilty to a charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine. The Client avoided getting a criminal record and kept his license.

R. v. A.S.
Client was charged with Refusing to Provide a Sample into an Approved Screening Device. The charge was withdrawn by the Crown after successful resolution discussions. The Client plead guilty to the charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine. He avoided getting a criminal record and losing his license.

R. v. A.L.
Client was charged with Over 80 milligrams Operation. The charge was withdrawn on a trial date. The Client plead guilty to the charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine. He avoided getting a criminal record and kept his license.

R. v. D. B.
Client was charged with Impaired and Over 80 milligrams Operation. Both charges were withdrawn after the first trial date because of an anticipated motion to stay the proceedings for delay. The client plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. He avoided getting a criminal record and kept his driver’s license.

R. v. A.R.
Client was charged with Over 80 Milligrams Operation. After resolution discussions with the Crown, the criminal charge was withdrawn. The client plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. He avoided getting a criminal record.

R. v. S.G.
Client was charged with Over 80 milligrams Operation. The trial commenced and the Crown called his arresting officer. After counsel’s successful cross-examination of the arresting officer Crown agreed to withdraw the charge. The client plead guilty to Careless Driving Under the Highway Traffic Act. He avoided getting a criminal record.

R. v. L.H.
Client was charged with Impaired Operation and Over 80 milligrams Operation. Her breath readings were more than twice the legal limit. On the trial date the Crown agreed to withdraw both charges due to difficulties in proving the case against her. The client plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. She avoided getting a criminal record.

R. v. S.M.
Client was charged with Impaired Operation and Over 80 milligrams Operation. Her breath readings were both more than twice the legal limit. After a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice both charges against her were dismissed.

Manslaughter
The Client was originally charged with Aggravated Assault following an altercation with another individual. The charges were upgraded to Manslaugher. The matter proceeded to a preliminary hearing where the Crown called a number of witnesses. The charge was withdrawn by the Crown shortly after the preliminary hearing.

DOMESTIC ASSAULT CASES

R. v. V.M.
The Client was charged with a serious Domestic Assault. All charges were withdrawn by the Crown after successful resolution discussions.

R. v. T.M.
The Client was charged with a Domestic Assault , Threatening and Failing to Comply. All charges were withdrawn by the Crown after successful resolution discussions.

R. v. T.K.
Client was charged with a Domestic Assault. All charges were withdrawn by the Crown after successful resolution discussions.

R. v. M.G.
Client charged with Assault Bodily Harm. On the second day of trial the Crown withdrew the charge against the Client and the client entered into a Peace Bond.

Drug Offence Cases

R.v. T.V.
Client was charged with Producing Marihuana and other drug-related offences. After a month long trial, the client and co-accused were acquitted of all charges.

R. v. G.H.
Client was charged with Producing Marihuana in a large outdoor grow operation. The Charges were withdrawn by the Crown.

R. v. O.A.
Client was charged with trafficking in large amount of cocaine. Following a trial in the Superior Court the charges were stayed because the police violated the Client’s Charter rights.

Theft, Fraud, Robbery and Other Offences

R. v. C.R.

The Client was charged with a Robbery in Scarborough. On the trial date the charges were withdrawn by the Crown.

R. v. R. C.
The Client was charged with a Sexual Assault and Assault with a weapon. All charges were dismissed following a trial in the Superior Court.

R. v. P. S.
The Client was charged with Mortgage Fraud. All charges were withdrawn by the Crown following a judicial pre-trial.

R. v. J.L.
The Client was charged with Sexual Assault on two fellow high school students. The charges were withdrawn after resolution discussions with the Crown.

R. v. M.C.
The Client was charged with Robbery. The Crown withdrew the charge after successful resolution discussions.

R. v. T.S.
The Client was charged with Robbery. The Crown agreed to withdraw the charge after successful resolution discussions.

CONTACT

PRACTICE AREAS

drinking and driving

domestic assault

theft & fraud

drug offences

youth court cases

OFFICES

Brampton Office

2 County Court Blvd., Suite 400,

Brampton, Ontario L6W 3W8

Michelle Johal Criminal Lawyer
2 County Court Blvd., Suite 400 Brampton, ON L6W 3W8
Phone: 416.824.3584 URL of Map