Winning DUI & Other Driving Cases

R v. B (2023, OCJ Orangeville)

Client got into a single motor vehicle accident with his work truck and trailer. Police arrived and investigated and charged him with impaired driving and driving while over the legal limit. I was able to convince the Crown Attorney that there were substantial problems with their case because of the fact that no none had actually seen the accident and there was a substantial delay before the police arrived as this accident had happened in a remote area. The Crown Attorney offered and the client accepted a guilty plea to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act and the criminal charges were withdrawn. This allowed the client to keep his job because the accident had taken place in a work vehicle and any criminal conviction would have resulted in his immediate dismissal.

R v. D (2023, OCJ Newmarket)

Client was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm, fail to remain at the scene of an accident, assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm. The client was driving a work truck and was confronted at his workplace while in the truck by his ex-girlfriend who was demanding money from him. She demanded to be allowed into the truck and when she went around to the passenger side of the truck the client drove off and he drove over her midsection and then left the scene. It became obvious through investigation that the client would have felt the collision with the woman and should have stopped. It was also equally clear that there was no intention by the client to do harm. The pretrial judge agreed with me about all of this and the client ultimately plead guilty to failing to remain at the scene of the accident and received a sentence of house arrest for 18 months and a driving prohibition for 2 years. All other charges were withdrawn. This was an especially good result because the client had previously been found guilty of an assault in relation to the same complainant.

R v. C (2022, OCJ Brampton)

Client was charged with driving while prohibited; breach of probation; and carrying of a concealed weapon. The Crown Attorney’s original position was 4 to 6 months in jail. I had the client complete some upfront counselling and was able to show the judge that he had a very sympathetic background and the judge ultimately agreed that a sentence of 60 days of house arrest plus probation was appropriate. The client plead guilty with the weapons charge being withdrawn.

R v. N (2022, OCJ Brampton)

Client was charged with impaired driving and driving while over the legal limit and had been involved in an accident on the QEW. There was a suggestion that the client may face charges of impaired driving causing bodily harm as a result of the accident and the client had a previous conviction for drinking and driving which complicated the matter. I was able to convince the crown attorney that my client’s impairment was not the cause of the accident and the charges were never elevated to impaired driving causing bodily harm. In the interim the client had done an in-house rehabilitation program for more that 2 months and in the end, the Crown Attorney chose not to file a notice for increased penalty because of the client’s efforts at rehabilitation and the judge ultimately imposed a fine and a driving suspension. The crown attorney’s original position on the case was 6 to 9 months in jail.

R v. C (2019, OCJ Brampton)

Client was charged with impaired driving and driving while over the legal limit with readings in excess of 200 mg per 100 ml of blood. Client had a previous conviction for impaired driving and so the crown attorney’s position was the mandatory 30 days in jail for a second offence. Client had done an in-house rehab program for 45 days. As a result of that, both the crown and the judge agreed at a judicial pre-trial that given her efforts she should not go to jail but rather was given 30 days of house arrest plus a 3 year driving prohibition which was the minimum driving prohibition from the Ministry of Transportation.

R. v. S. (2018, Brampton)

Client was charged with his second drinking and driving offence which carries a mandatory minimum 30-day jail sentence. The client clearly had an alcohol problem, but was reluctant to acknowledge it, but through a meeting with all family members we were able to convince the client that counselling was a very good option, ultimately once he had completed the counselling a judicial pretrial was conducted, at which time the Crown agreed that they would ask for jail but would not file a notice requiring the judge to send him to jail and the judge indicated that he would sentence him to a high fine and not send him to jail, which is what he did.

R v. Y (2022, OCJ Brampton)

Client was charged with dangerous driving and possession of stolen property and fail to remain at the scene of an accident. The client had purchased a vehicle and then before getting insurance onto the vehicle and before being properly licensed to drive it, got into 2 separate accidents. Police then believed that the car that he was driving was actually stolen. I was able to show that there was no proof that the car was stolen and that the accidents were more careless than dangerous and all criminal charges were withdrawn after the client plead guilty to careless driving under the highway traffic act.

R. v. A. - Dangerous Driving and Fail to Remain

Client was driving three of his young cousins to Wonderland. When he attempted to turn right he collided with a pedestrian who received minor injuries. The client then drove forward in an attempt to pull into the parking lot so that his vehicle was not blocking the live lane of traffic. A citizen was concerned that he was fleeing the scene, and cut him off. Police arrived and decided that he had been attempting to flee the scene and charged him with both dangerous driving and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

I had the client take photographs of the area and provide an overhead view of the area from Google Maps, and mark on there exactly where he had struck the pedestrian and how far it was to the entrance to the parking lot where he was headed. I also pulled out a portion of the concerned citizen's statement to show to the Crown in which the client had said to this person "I'm not leaving, I'm just trying to get my car out of the way, please follow me into the parking lot." The Crown had not been aware of that statement. I was also able to convince the Crown that this was merely an accident at a very busy intersection.

Both criminal charges of Dangerous Driving and Fail to Remain at the scene of an accident were withdrawn by the Crown and the client pled guilty to the Highway Traffic offence of failing to yield the right of way to a pedestrian, and received a $200 fine.

R. v. H. - Over 80

Client had been in a minor accident in which his car ended up sliding off the roadway at a casino into a ditch area. Police were called and investigated, upon which it was determined that he was driving over the legal limit. My client had a previous conviction for drinking and driving three years prior, which meant that he was facing a minimum sentence of thirty days in jail if convicted of this offence.

There were a few legal issues with respect to the arrest of my client and a potential violation of his right to a lawyer, and I chose to alert the Crown to those issues.

The Crown agreed that there were potential legal arguments that they could lose at trial. We set the matter for a judicial pre-trial, advised the pre-trial judge of the issues, and it was agreed that the client would not receive the mandatory minimum jail sentence but rather would receive a fine and probation.

R. v. P. (2016 Brampton) - Excess Blood Alcohol Over 80

At a traffic stop my client was asked to perform a breathalyser test, the results of which indicated he had an excess blood alcohol level. He was charged with excess blood alcohol over 80.

To demonstrate that this incident was out of character for my client. He admitted to having been drinking the night before, and his arrest occurred the next day in the afternoon; as such he believed it was safe for him to drive. If my client received a criminal record, he would be unable to keep his job at the hospital due to the required police record checks.

The Crown allowed my client to plead guilty to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act and the criminal charge of Over 80 was withdrawn.

R. v. E. (2016 Brampton) - Over 80 and Possession of Cocaine

My client was driving home at eight o'clock in the morning after partying with his friends the night before. He had no idea that his blood alcohol was still over the legal limit. He was stopped and he did in fact blow over the legal limit, and was subsequently arrested. Upon arrest, the police discovered cocaine in his socks.

I was able to convince the federal prosecutor to withdraw the drug charges because this was a one-off situation and that he did not normally use drugs. My client came from a very supportive and good family. I also informed the federal prosecutor that my client would be pleading guilty to the charge of over 80, which he did.

Client received the minimum fine for over 80 and a three month driving suspension. By having the drug charges withdrawn, I was able to save my client's ability to cross the border to the United States.

R. v. S. (2015 Brampton) - Over 80 Causing Bodily Harm

My client was charged with over 80 after he struck and badly injured a pedestrian. It was dark outside and raining at the time of the incident. My client stopped immediately, police attended, and ultimately my client was arrested and samples of his breath were tested. Ultimately the tests revealed that his blood alcohol level was over the legal limit.

At trial, I was able to show that the arresting officer was completely biased against my client because he was of East Indian descent and the officer made unjustified assumptions about him based on the colour of his skin. I was then able to show that this officer had no proper grounds for arresting my client. In addition to that, I was able to cross-examine the injured party, and show him to be a complete liar. He claimed he had been at a party where he had only one glass of wine; however, when his blood alcohol levels were tested at the hospital they were more than three times the legal limit. The injured party had a memory of only the things that would advance his interests in the civil case and nothing else. Decision/Outcome: As a result, my client's breath readings were excluded from evidence and he was found not guilty.