R. v. K.
Client was acquitted of impaired driving and driving over .08 after Judge agreed with Defence arguments of unreasonable delay in the taking of breath samples.
R. v. T.
Client was acquitted of impaired driving and driving over .08 due to delay in the breath samples being taken resulting from the unnecessary calling and waiting for a tow truck.
R. v. S.
Charges of impaired driving and driving over .08 were stayed by Crown Counsel after defence cross-examination resulted in the Court finding that the police officer exaggerated the driving evidence and symptoms of impairment.
R. v. H.
Judicial stay of proceedings of impaired driving charge ordered after it was found that the police abused their authority by detaining the client in custody after providing breath samples.
R. v. M.; R. v. B.; R. v. C; and R. v. G.
In each of these cases, the charges of impaired driving, driving over .08 or refusing to provide a breath sample were stayed prior to trial due to the Defence argument that the trial was not held within a reasonable time.
R. v. M.
Client was originally charged with impaired driving and driving over .08 after providing samples of .30 – nearly four times the legal limit. Charges were reduced to a plea under s. 144 of the Motor Vehicle Act, avoiding a criminal record, additional administrative penalties and reducing the driving prohibition by at least 9 months
R. v. Y.
After cross-examining the police, the charges of impaired driving were reduced to a plea under the Motor Vehicle Act where the client provided samples of .26 – over three times the legal limit.
R. v. F.
Client acquitted of dangerous driving and failing to stop for the police after cross examination of the police officer regarding his eye witness identification.
R. v. H.
Charges of impaired driving and refusal to provide a breath sample were stayed due to withholding of material evidence and unreasonable delay in the proceedings.
Free Consultation Contact us today