Being charged with a drinking and driving related offence can have an immediate and devastating impact on your life. This is why it is important to retain a lawyer who has a complete and comprehensive understanding of the technical defences that are available to you, including the workings of the intoxilyzer.
Our client was charged with driving with over the legal limit of alcohol. He was following his friend who he was concerned was drunk. The friend got into a single motor vehicle accident. The police found him at the scene of the accident. He admitted to having driven a few minutes ago. His alcohol level was 114 mgs of alcohol in 100 mls of blood on both blowsResult
Our client was a foreign student from India. He was studying here in Canada. Any type of criminal record would likely impact his ability to stay here. We presented the Crown with positive input about our client and convinced the Crown that the low readings could be challenged in Court. The Crown agreed to withdraw the criminal charges. Our client entered to a plea of guilt to the charge of CARELESS DRIVING. He avoided a criminal conviction and a driving prohibition
Our client was charged for Impaired Driving and Refusing a Breath Sample. The Crown did not give us the breathroom video tape disclosure for 7 months. I patiently waited for those tapes and then set a trial date. We received a trial date after 8 months; resulting in a total 15 month delay.Result
I brought section 11(b) Charter argument. I was prepared to argue that the case was delayed longer than what is permitted. The Crown agreed with my application and requested the Court to STAY the charges. My client got a clean record and no license suspension.
Our client was charged with refusing to blow into a roadside screening device. Our client insisted that he did try to blow. There was no medical reason why he couldn't blow.Trial
We cross-examined the police officer with regards to his knowledge of the device he used. It was shown that the officer didn't really know much about the device, other than the basics.Result
The Judge was not satisfied that the officer was operating the device properly and that he was getting an error message due to our client's actions. The Judge accepted our clients evidence that he was genuinely trying to blow into the approved screening device. Our client won his case.