Winning DUI & Other Driving Cases

These include the criminal offence of Dangerous Driving, Street Racing, Impaired Driving, DWI, DUI, Criminal Negligence and so forth. They all carry penalties that include license suspensions and so if your license is important to you, then it is extremely important to have counsel involved right from the start of the process.

Negotiated Pleas

The following clients were able to have me negotiate with the Crown guilty pleas to drinking and driving offences that resulted in 90 day suspensions rather than a full year plus a further year with an ignition interlock device in their car. This is a new program that became available to eligible clients on August 3, 2010 and makes it imperative that clients retain me prior to their first court appearance:

R.V.B. (Brampton Court, September 2010); R.V.N. (Brampton Court, October 2010); R.V.B. (Brampton Court, September 2010); R.V.D. (Brampton Court, October 2010); R.V.S. (Simcoe Court, September 2010); R.V.W. (Hamilton Court, August 2010); R. v. S. (Brampton Court, November, 2010); R. v. G. (Brampton Court, December, 2010).

Other Experience With Impaired Driving Cases

There is no doubt that these cases are becoming more difficult to successfully defend; the courts and Parliament have heeded the public's concern about drinking and driving and have eliminated many technical defenses that were previously available. However, the courts still have a backlog problem which often works in the client's favor and police officers are still susceptible to well organized and thoughtful cross-examination. It is hoped that the few recent cases that I have successfully defended and summarized here will encourage you to seek out advice whenever charged with one of these offences.

More 2016 Driving Offences
3 out of 4 cases resulted in no criminal record.
3 withdrawal of charges.
1 received fine and probation when facing jail time.

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

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.

Strategy

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.

Decision/Outcome

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. C. - Dangerous Driving and Assault
Background

Client became involved in a road rage incident with another driver in which the client was seen cutting off the other driver and ultimately getting into a physical confrontation with the other driver after the vehicles had collided.

Strategy

To convince the Crown that this was out of character for my client, and that he did not have a major anger problem.

Decision/Outcome

The Crown agreed to allow the client to plead guilty to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act. Both criminal charges were withdrawn, and the client agreed to attend for anger management counselling.

R. v. H. - Over 80
Background

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.

Strategy

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.

Decision/Outcome

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. K. - Over 80
Background

Client was stopped driving home after a hockey game and failed the roadside screening device, and ultimately blew over the legal limit at the police station.

Strategy

I retained the services of a toxicologist and told him that the client had finished a pint of beer just before leaving the arena, and as a result of that the toxicologist was able to say that at the time of driving, the client was not over the legal limit even though his readings at the police station put him over the legal limit.

Decision/Outcome

The Crown agreed to withdraw the criminal charge if the client plead to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act which he did.

2015-2016 Driving Offences **5 Cases**

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

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.

Strategy

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.

Decision/Outcome

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. G. (2016 Brampton) - Dangerous Driving and Assault
Background

My client was driving, there was some sort of traffic incident between him and the complainant. This resulted in my client weaving in and out of traffic and cutting off the complainant's vehicle. He ultimately exited his vehicle and got into a physical altercation with the complainant, resulting in his being charged with dangerous driving and assault.

Strategy

I was able to convince the Crown that this was out of character for my client and that he works at the airport which requires frequent security checks to demonstrate that he is criminal-record free.

Decision/Outcome

The Crown agreed to withdraw both criminal charges on a guilty plea to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act with a term of probation under the Provincial Offences Act where he would have no contact with the complainant and undergo counselling for anger management

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

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.

Strategy

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.

Decision/Outcome

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. C. (2015 Orangeville) - Impaired/Over 80
Background

My client was charged with impaired and over 80; it was his third offence, which meant he was facing a statutory minimum sentence of four months in jail.

Strategy

I conducted a pre-trial with a judge and was able to convince both the Crown and the judge that there were issues regarding the police officer's conduct in relation to my client, which meant the Crown would have some difficulty in proving the case.

Decision/Outcome

It was agreed that my client would receive a thirty day sentence to be served on weekends, so that he could keep his job.

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

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.

Strategy

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.

Fill out this form for free,
Immediate, Case Evaluation

or call 905‑366‑4354
Email: