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 The charge was withdrawn on the trial date by the Crown.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.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. 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. S.S.
Client was charged with Over 80 milligrams Operation. At trial the judge found his rights to privacy with regard to the use of the toilet facilities at the police station were breached and dismissed the charge. The Crown appealed to the Superior court. The Crown appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a new trial ordered. However, a new trial did not proceed. The Crown agreed to a resolution that did not include a conviction for the client. He avoided getting a permanent 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.

R. v. S. S.
Client was charged with Refusing to Provide a breath sample. After a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice the charge against him was dismissed.

R v. F. B.
Client was charged with Over 80 milligrams Operation following an accident on his motorcycle. After a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice the charge against him was dismissed. The judge found his rights under the Charter were violated.

R v. N. S.
Client was charged with Over 80 milligrams Operation following an accident. After a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice the charge against her was dismissed. The judge found her rights pursuant to s. 8 of the Charter were violated.

R v. M.S.
Client was charged with Over 80 milligrams Operation. After his trial at the Ontario Court of Justice the charge against him was dismissed. The Crown could not prove his breath samples were taken within two hours of the driving.

R v. N.K.
Client was charged with Over 80 milligrams Operation. His trial commenced at the Ontario Court. Counsel had filed a Charter application that his rights to counsel had been breached by the police. Mid-trial the Crown agreed to withdraw the criminal charge. The Client plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. His criminal charge was withdrawn. He avoided getting a criminal record.

Dangerous Offender Application
The Crown brought an application to have the Client declared a dangerous offender. The judge rejected the Crown’s request to declare the Client a dangerous offender. The Client was found to be a long-term offender. The case was significant because the dangerous offender label is typically reserved for the most violent offenders, and can result in life imprisonment.

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

Drug Offences

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.

Other Offences

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. C.L.
The Client was charged with Sexual Assault. The Client’s application for a stay of proceedings due to a breach of his right to a speedy trial was allowed.

R v. T.C.
The client was found guilty of assault, assault with a weapon, dangerous driving and failing to remain at the scene of an accident following a trial in the Ontario Court. The Client received a conditional discharge. She avoided a permanent criminal record.

R v. A.J.
The Client was charged with various offences in connection with the seizure of a loaded 9-mm semiautomatic firearm. The defence brought an application pursuant to s. 8 and 9 of the Charter to have the evidence excluded. The judge ruled that the Client’s rights were violated. She ruled that the Crown may not adduce evidence of the firearm that was found in the vehicle in his trial. All charges were dismissed following a trial in the Superior Court.

CONTACT

OFFICE

Brampton Office

2 County Court Blvd., Suite 400,

Brampton, Ontario L6W 3W8

Phone: 416.824.3584 URL of Map