R. v. D(K) 2012
Charge of Over 80 stayed at Old City Hall courthouse after Defence Counsel David Rose brings an Application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay. Judge agrees that Mr. Rose should have been provided breathalyzer simulator calibration checksheet 18 months before trial.
Regina v. A.P. (2012)
Client found not guilty of impaired driving and over 80 after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger advanced a section 8 application challenging the grounds for arrest and the breath samples, as well defences of evidence to the contrary and a delay application. The client was found not guilty of both charges.
Regina v. M.K. (2011)
Charges of Impaired Driving and Over 80 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The client was found at the ramp of a highway with two blown tires and damage to the side of the car. The police investigated and demanded samples of the client's breath. The client gave readings of 106 mg and 98mg. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger sought a copy of the in-car video recording of the interaction at the roadside. The recording showed a conflict in evidence between the two officers, such that one did not notice any odour of alcohol and the second "smelled something" but was unsure whether they should make the demand under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code. As a result, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger argued that there was no reasonable suspicion to demand a breath sample and the readings ought to be excluded. The Crown agreed and the charges were withdrawn.
R. v. B. (R.) (2011)
Client is acquitted of Over 80 after lawyer David Rose cross-examines arresting officer on his grounds for breath demand. Crown concedes that after Mr. Rose's cross-examination there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and invited the Court to dismiss the charge.
Regina v. E.A. (2011)
Charge of over 80 withdrawn after extensive negotiations with the Crown. The readings were 108, and 103. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish to the Crown that at the time of driving the client may have been under the legal limit and as a result the charge was withdrawn in favour of a plea to the Highway Traffic Offence of careless driving.
Regina v. S.L. (2011)
Client found not guilty of Over 80, readings of 106 and 98 mgs after two day trial. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the readings were outside of the two hour time period that would allow the Crown to rely upon the statutory presumption. As such, Joseph Neuberger ran an evidence to the contrary defence and as part of the defence, he subpoenaed the general manager of the restaurant where S.L. had dinner in order to establish the drinking pattern and that a "double" means two ounces. The court accepted the evidence of S.L. and the other defence witnesses in finding S.L. not guilty.
Regina v. M.C. (2011)
Charges of dangerous driving, flight from police, stunt driving and speeding, withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in favour of a resolution for one count of careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act. The client was involved in an alleged police chase and high speed accident on highway 407. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the evidence did not constitute either dangerous driving under the Criminal Code or stunt driving. With the assistance of an accident reconstruction expert, the defence was able to establish that the alleged paced speed was inaccurate and contradicted by other scientific evidence. As such, the charges were withdrawn and a plea of guilty was entered only to one count of careless driving.
Regina v. S.S. (2011)
Client is acquitted of Impaired Driving and Over 80 charges after a trial in Sudbury. David Rose successfully argues that the client's arrest was made without reasonable and probable grounds, and that the discrepancies in the arresting officers' evidence were significant. As a result the client was found not guilty.
Regina v. P.H. (2011)
Client is acquitted of impaired Driving and Driver Over 80 charges after trial in Newmarket. David Rose successfully argues that the client's right to counsel of choice was violated and that breath readings should be excluded from the trial. Cross-examination by Mr. Rose of the arresting officer from York Regional Police Force lead the Court to comment that the officer's reliability was too weak, and accused found not guilty.
Regina v. R.P.M. (2011)
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger brought a disclosure request for extensive records of the intoxilyzer 8000C used in the taking of the breath samples. As a result of disclosure, an error had been discovered that was not previously disclosed which affected the accuracy of the readings. In addition, the defence was going to include a Constitutional challenge to the newly drafted "evidence to the contrary" defence. Consequently, the charge was withdrawn prior to trial in favour of a resolution by way of a careless driving charge under the Highway Traffic Act.
Regina v. O.F. (2011)
Charges of Over 80 and impaired driving withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to the commencement of trial. The readings were taken some 42 minutes after the arrest. There was no apparent reason justifying the delay. In addition, there were insufficient grounds for the investigating officer to make the initial arrest and demand for the breath sample. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger brought a Charter Application on behalf of the client alleging violations of sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Charter. After reviewing the defence material, the Crown agreed that there were Charter breaches and as such there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. All charges were therefore withdrawn.
Regina v. D.C. (2010)
Client acquitted of Impaired Driving an Over 80 at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Due to a delay of 47 minutes between the taking of the breath samples, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger successfully argued that the unexplained delay was sufficiently unreasonable sufficient as to deprive the Crown from relying upon the presumption of identity. As such the client was found not guilty of the Over 80. Joseph Neuberger then successfully argued that on the remainder of the evidence, the indicia of impairment was so frail and undermined by contradictory evidence of the breath technician, that the Court could not convict of impaired driving. Accordingly the client was found not guilty of the impaired driving charge as well.
Regina v. A.M. (2010)
After trial in Hamilton David Rose obtains acquittal for client on charge of Dangerous Driving
Regina v. R.M. (2010)
David Rose successfully brings Disclosure Motion under Charter of Rights and Freedoms that Crown disclosure in an Over 80 case is insufficient.
Regina v. R.N. (2010)
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn just prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The charge occurred in July of 2007. The readings were 120 mgs, and 121 mgs. A defence was brought challenging the readings based upon an "evidence to the contrary" defence. The law regarding the defence was changed in 2008. As a result, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger brought a Constitutional challenge to the new legislation. After many months, and years of litigation, the charge was withdrawn on the basis of a plea of guilty to a charge of careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act.
Regina v. A.M. (2010)
Charges of Impaired Driving, Over 80 and G2 Licence violation with alcohol over zero, all withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged as having the care and control of his motor vehicle in spite of the fact that when the investigating police officer arrived a friend of the client was in the driver's seat with the key in the ignition. After careful review by defence counsel Joseph Neuberger of the in-car video, the defence was able to establish that the officer lacked sufficient grounds to arrest A.M., and in fact lacked any time of driving for which A.M. could have been alleged to have had care and control. Further, there was sufficient evidence to establish that the person in the driver's seat was the one in care and control. As such, all charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. P.R. (2010)
Charges of impaired driving, Over 80 and possession of marijuana, all withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. The client was charged with operating while impaired by alcohol and possession as he was found to possess remnants of several joints. The readings were rather low, and in defence, Joseph Neuberger, defence lawyer for P.R., drafted a Constitutional Challenge to the new "evidence to the contrary" provision of the Criminal Code along with a detailed disclosure motion for extensive records of the maintenance history of the intoxilyzer breath machine used to obtain the readings from P.R. In order to avoid the Constitutional challenge, P.R. plead guilty to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act and all criminal charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. O.C. (2010)
Client had charges of Impaired Driving, Over 80, Drive Disqualified and Possession of Marijuana withdrawn after David Rose brought Motion to compel Durham Regional Police to disclose maintenance records for Intoxilyzer 5000C breathalyser.
Regina v. A.F. (2010)
Client acquitted of Refuse to Provide Breath Sample after defence counsel Stacey Nichols effectively cross-examined police officers and presented expert medical evidence relating to the Accused's inability to provide the sample due to anxiety issues.
Regina v. A.B. (2010)
Client is acquitted of Drive Over 80 charge after a trial in London Ontario in which David Rose successfully argued that the client's rights to counsel were breached because the client reasonably believed that the police overheard his conversation with duty counsel.
Regina v. S.G. (2010)
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger advanced a Constitutional challenge to the "evidence to the contrary" provision of the Criminal Code, recently amended by Bill C-2, in July of 2008. A detailed Affidavit was developed by the defence along with a detailed disclosure motion. As a result of the defence challenge to the new law and the low readings, the charge was withdrawn in favour of a plea to careless driving under s. 130 of the Highway Traffic Act.
Regina v. (T.) K. (2009)
David Rose obtained a ruling from Justice Caldwell at Old City Hall after he argued a disclosure motion during the course of an Impaired/Over 80 trial. The Crown was ordered to disclose Drug Recognition Expert and Standard Field Sobriety Testing training manuals for the arresting officer.
Read the decision.
Regina v. (C.) B. (2009)
David Rose obtained a ruling from Justice Brown at Old City Hall after he argued a disclosure motion during an impaired/over 80 trial. Crown ordered to disclose the Drug Recognition and Standard Field Sobriety Testing manuals of an investigating officer.
Regina v. (A.) N. (2009)
David Rose obtained an acquittal for client on charges of Impaired Driving/Over 80 after a 2 day trial in Parry Sound. Trial judge held that the Parry Sound O.P.P. breached the client's rights under s. 10(b) of the Charter because the client did not adequately understand English.
Regina v. Ferguson (2009)
Charges of Impaired Driving and Over 80 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client's vehicle was found at the side of the road in a ditch with deep snow. The client was arrested for care and control and eventually gave readings more than twice the legal limit. The client had advised police that he was not the driver, but was charged as having care and control and no one else being around as the alleged driver. What defence counsel Joseph Neuberger discovered by careful review of the disclosure and from his client was that the police had taken 22 minutes to transport the client to the police station. The station ought to have been only a few minute drive. The police had in fact gone for dinner while leaving the client locked in the back of the police cruiser. A detailed Charter Application was filed alleging violations of the client's section 7, 9 and 10(b) rights along with an Affidavit from the client and a map showing the distances. As a result, the Crown agreed with the defence that this was an impermissible violation of the client's rights and as a result all charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. Cooke (2009)
Charges of "Over 80" dismissed pursuant to defence counsel Stacey Nichols cross-examining the officer with regard to discrepancies surrounding the timing of the samples.
Regina v. Mohamed (2009)
Client found not guilty after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice based upon a "bolus" drinking defence. The accused testified that he consumed whisky 20 to 30 minutes prior to being stopped by police. The readings that were 161 mg and 153 mg were consistent with his pattern of drinking, but as explained through expert evidence, at the time the client was stopped by police, the alcohol he consumed would have only been 50% absorbed and he would have been under the legal limit at the time of driving. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger argued that this amount to "evidence to the contrary" and that the client ought to be acquitted. The evidence of all three defence witnesses were accepted and the client was found not guilty.
Regina v. S.D. (2009)
Charges of impaired driving and Over 80 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, after extensive review of the evidence and potential challenge by defence counsel, Joseph Neuberger, to the recent amendments altering the "evidence to the contrary" defence.
Regina v. Gorkhoran (2009)
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting the trial date. The readings were 103, and 105. The defence was prepared advance a constitutional challenge to the new "evidence to the contrary" provision under the Criminal Code. Given the low readings, the charges were withdrawn in favour of the client pleading guilty to the Highway Traffic Offence of Careless Driving.
Regina v. Singh (2009)
Charges of Impaired Driving and Over 80 withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to the commencement of an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay of 11 months from the date when the trial was set. In addition, the defence was brining a "last drink" defence with credible evidence that at the time the client was stopped by police, the blood alcohol concentration was under the legal limit.
Regina v. A.L. (2009)
Client acquitted of Impaired Driving and Drive Over 80 charges in Burlington after trial in which David Rose successfully cross-examined on time of driving, and indicators of impairment.
Regina v. R.S. (2009)
Client found not guilty of Over 80 charge after trial in Newmarket, Ontario. David Rose successfully cross-examines witnesses on timing of accident.
Regina v. A.L. (2009)
Charge of Over 80 with readings of 100 and 98 was withdrawn prior to trial in favour of a plea to a careless driving charge under the Highway Traffic Act. The Crown agreed to the resolution based upon the low readings, and the challenge by the defence of the new legislation on "evidence to the contrary."
Regina v. Khan (2009)
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn prior to trial on the basis of defence challenge to Bill C-2 altering the "evidence to the contrary" defence. Counsel Joseph Neuberger and Stacey Nichols brought comprehensive challenge to the new law that will be heard in 2009. However, on the basis of the application and the low readings in this case, the defence convinced the Crown to not proceed on the charge of Over 80.
Regina v. D.V. (2009)
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn at trial on basis of constitutional challenge to the new "evidence to the contrary" provision.
Regina v. Clarke (2008)
Client acquitted of Over 80 Care and Control after comprehensive defence accepted by Court negating evidence presented by Crown Attorney.
Regina v. C.C. (2008)
Charges of Impaired and Over 80 withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to section 11(b) application brought by defence alleging unreasonable delay in bringing case to trial.
Regina v. Padley (2008)
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in response to defence challenge to Bill C-2, alleging the new evidence provision is unconstitutional.
Regina v. Bennett (2008)
Charges of refuse breath sample and impaired driving dismissed at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. After detailed and thorough cross-examination, the trial judge concluded that both officers were inconsistent and that there was a lack of evidence on the impaired driving charge. In addition, the trial judge concluded that based upon the evidence of the client and a defence witness, there was no refusal based upon erroneous advise of a friend who was a corporate lawyer. Accordingly, client found not guilty of the charges.
Regina v. L.D. (2008)
Charges of Impaired Care and Control and "Over 80" dismissed in the Ontario Court of Justice after a lengthy trial conducted by Stacey Nichols. Cross examination of civilian witnesses and police officers revealed inconsistencies in the Crown's case, ultimately rebutting the presumption under the Criminal Code that the client was in care and control of the vehicle.
Regina v. Zandi (2008)
Charges of impaired driving, dangerous driving and mischief over $5,000.00 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger took over the file from previous counsel who had been defending the case for over one year. Aggressive pressure by defence to assess the case and the evidence, combined with a defence investigation resulted in the Crown withdrawing all charges prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.
Regina v. Zavzel (2008)
Client found not guilty of Over 80 after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger advanced an "evidence to the contrary" defence based upon the evidence of the client and an independent witness. Thorough preparation of the client and his witness resulted in the court accepting both witnesses as credible and trustworthy. The evidence of the defence expert toxicologist was accepted. As such, the charge was dismissed.
Regina v. Olenykov (2007)
Charges of Impaired Driving, Over 80, and G2 Licence infraction withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence Charter Application to exclude evidence conceded by the Crown resulting in the withdrawal of all charges.
Regina v. Turek (2007)
Client acquitted at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of charge of Over 80 after trial based upon finding of credible "evidence to the contrary" rebutting the readings of the intoxilyzer breath machine.
Regina v. Pabla (2007)
Client found not guilty of impaired driving and Over 80 in the Ontario Court of Justice. Skillful cross-examination of the officers elicited inconsistencies in their observations of the driving of the accused. Further, evidence disclosed bolus drinking which could not be disproved by the Crown. As a result the client was acquitted of both charges.
Regina v. Moore (2007)
Charge of Over 80 stayed as Application in the Ontario Court of Justice to stay the charge due to unreasonable delay of 13.5 months successful.
Regina v. Traicheff (2007)
Client acquitted of charge of Over 80 in the Ontario Court of Justice following successful Application to exclude the intoxilyzer readings due to violation of client's right to counsel of choice.
Regina v. Anderson (2007)
Client acquitted of charge of Over 80 after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence "evidence to the contrary" was accepted by the trial judge as both credible and reliable thus raising a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the readings of 178 and 181.
Regina v. (G.) M. (2007)
Charge of "Over 80" dismissed at request of Crown Attorney after counsel's successful cross-examination of police officer regarding time of Accused's driving. Crown agreeing pursuant to cross-examination that essential elements of the offence not established.
Regina v. (K.) B. (2007)
Charge of Fail to Comply dismissed by trial judge after counsel's successful cross-examination of arresting officer showing that the elements of offence were not made out.
Regina v. (J.) C. (2007)
Client acquitted of Impaired Driving and Over 80 charges after trial. Client charged with Impaired Driving and Drive Over 80. After cross-examination of the arresting officer during a trial before Mr. Justice Getliffe, client was acquitted of the Impaired Driving Charges. Client was also acquitted of the Over 80 charge after a successful Charter Application to exclude the breath readings. The Ontario Provincial Police made insufficient efforts to put the accused in touch with the lawyer he asked for, and when he was later put in touch with Duty Counsel, there was insufficient privacy during the conversation. As a result there were two breaches of the accused's rights to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.
Regina v. M.F. (2007)
charges of impaired operation and over 80 stayed in the Ontario Court of Justice upon a finding by the trial judge that the Applicant's rights as guaranteed by s. 11(b) of the Charter were violated, because of an unreasonable delay in bringing the case to trial.
Regina v. Jurado (2007)
client found not guilty at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of charge of Refuse breath sample, after detailed cross-examination of the arresting officer about the client's ability to understand and comprehend the demand.
Regina v. Nadarajah (2007)
client found not guilty at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice on charges of impaired driving, and Over 80 (readings of 280 and 320) after successful cross-examination of the arresting officer and the independent witness. Charter Application successful in excluding on scene statements of the client.
Regina v. G(P) (2007)
charge "Over 80" dismissed pursuant to counsel successfully arguing that client's section 10(b) rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated as he was not afforded his rights to counsel.
Regina v. S.C. (2007)
client acquitted in the Ontario Court of Justice of a charge of Over 80 after Charter Application alleging s.10(b) rights to counsel violation was successful and the readings were excluded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regina v. Ali (2007)
charges of Over 80 and impaired driving withdrawn after successful argument that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction as there was no evidence of time of driving.
Regina v. Kaufman (2006)
charges of Over 80 and Impaired Driving withdrawn just prior to trial as a result of Charter challenge to the detention and search of the client giving rise to the breath readings.
Regina v. Lyn (2006)
charge of Over 80 withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice after Crown accepts "evidence to the contrary" as a viable defence and thereby reduced the Crown's prospect of conviction. The Crown conceded the issue and the charge was withdrawn.
Regina v. Braimoh (2006)
charge of Refuse Roadside Breath Test withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.
Regina v. M.S. (2006)
client acquitted at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of a charge of Over 80. Cross examination of police officers established that the client appeared, at the time of the investigation, in a sober condition setting the foundation for the "evidence to the contrary" defence. Testimony of the client, the independent witness and the defence expert was accepted resulting in a finding of not guilty.
Regina v. Buxton (2006)
client acquitted at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of the charge of care and control while over 80, after the trial judge accepted the defence "evidence to the contrary".
Regina v. Trieu Nguyen (2006)
Charges client acquitted after trial before the Ontario Court of Justice. Client was pulled over by police for travelling 40 km per hour as stated by police to have been at a rate of speed that was dangerously below the speed limit, thus justifying the police stopping the client and then administering the tests. Defence Application under s. 9 and 8 of the Charter for a violation of the client's right to be free from arbitrary detention and search was successful and the readings were excluded. Client was found not guilty of the offence.
Regina v. Pena (2006)
Charges Client found not guilty of the charge of Over 80 after trial before the Ontario Court of Justice. The officer who conducted the intoxilyzer breath test testified as to observations of the client's impairment that were not included in his Alcohol Influence Report/notes. Detailed and vigorous cross-examination on this point resulted in the Trial Judge rejecting the evidence of the Breath Technician. In addition evidence provided by the defendant and his independent witness was accepted by the Court giving rise to "evidence to the contrary". Accordingly, the client was found not guilty of the charge.
Regina v. Farwell (2006)
Charges: Refuse breath sample.
Charge of Refuse Breath Sample Approved Screening Device, s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada, withdrawn at the pre-trial stage after discussions with Crown Attorney about the frailties of the police evidence and the police refusing to allow the client to contact duty counsel on his personal cell phone.
R. v. Squire (2006)
Charges: Refuse breath sample.
Outcome: Client acquitted after two day trial of Refuse Breath Sample in the Ontario Court of Justice. Client was believed based upon the "last chance" doctrine.
R. v. Ceballos (2005)
Charges: Over 80 and possession of credit card reading device.
Outcome: Defence raised credible, reliable "evidence to the contrary" as well as an innocent explanation as to the possession of the credit card reading device. After extensive cross-examination of the police officers, witnesses, and detailed submissions, the client was found not guilty of both charges.
R. v. Grahovac (2005)
Charges: Over 80 and impaired driving.
Case Facts: Client was seen crossing over the middle white line and was stopped by police. After investigation client was arrested and eventually provided readings of 160 and 170. During the search of the client's car an open beer can that was cold to the touch and was still containing beer was found. The arresting officer failed to detail in his notes the time of driving and the time of the stop.
Outcome: Client acquitted after trial on charges of over 80 and impaired driving. A Charter Application to exclude all statements of the accused and sobriety test results was successful. Detailed cross examination of the arresting and assisting officer on the issue of time of driving resulted in a finding of not guilty on both charges.
R. v. Shum (2005)
Charges: Charges of Over 80.
Outcome: Acquitted after trial.
R. v. Valderve (2005)
Charges: Impaired driving and over 80.
Outcome: Not guilty after trial. Detailed and extensive cross-examination of the police witnesses revelled a deficiency in the informational component of the demand. The defence was able to exclude the breath readings as a result of this deficiency. As there was little evidence of alcohol consumption the client was acquitted of both impaired driving and over 80.
R. v. Dinardo (2005)
Charges: Charge of over 80.
Outcome: Charter Application seeking to exclude all roadside statements successful. Crown unable to prove that the accused was the driver.
R. v. Saldanha (2005)
Charges: Charges of impaired driving and over 80.
Outcome: Charges stayed after successful Charter Application alleging a breach of the client's 11(b) Charter rights, protecting a trial within a reasonable time.
R. v. Finn. (2005)
Charges: Charge over 80.
Outcome: Client acquitted after trial of charge over 80. Defence successfully proffered "evidence to the contrary" which undermined accuracy of the intoxilyzer readings.
R. v. De Karic. (2005)
Charges: Charge of over 80.
Outcome: Charge of over 80 stayed at trial due to violation of client's Section 11(b) right to a trial within a reasonable time. Defence Charter Application successful and charge was stayed accordingly.
R. v. Schiebel. (2004)
Charges: Charges of over 80 and impaired driving.
Outcome: Acquitted after trial.
R. v. M.S. (2004)
Charges: charges of impaired driving and over 80.
Outcome: Acquitted after trial on charges of impaired driving and over 80, subsequent to successful Charter Application for violation of client's Section 10(b) rights.
R. v. G.S. (2004)
Charges: Charges of impaired driving, over 80, speeding, and graduated licence infraction.
Outcome: Acquitted after trial on all charges.
R. v. Samai (2004)
Charges: Charges of impaired driving, over 80.
Outcome: Acquitted after trial.
R. v. Sahota (2004)
Charges: Charge of over 80.
Outcome: Acquitted after trial on charge of over 80. Defence presented "evidence to the contrary" together with expert evidence, resulting in the acquittal.
R. v. Hannah (2004)
Charges: Charges of impaired driving, over 80.
Outcome: Acquitted after trial on both charges.
R. v. Alves (2004)
Charges: Charges of impaired driving, over 80.
Outcome: Acquitted after trial on both charges.
R. v. R.A. (2004)
Charges: Charges of impaired driving and refuse breath sample.
Outcome: Client acquitted by Judge Purvis in Collingwood on charges after successful argument that Ontario Provincial Police improperly arrested client resulting in a violation of s. 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
R. v. M.C. (2004)
Charges: Charges of impaired operation and over 80.
Outcome: Withdrawn after successful Charter Application regarding exclusion of all statements made by the accused at the scene of the accident.
R. v. Kopicanyova (2004)
Charges: Charges of over 80 and impaired driving.
Outcome: Charges withdrawn after Charter Application.
R. v. Parmar (2004)
Charges: Charges of over 80 and impaired driving.
Outcome: Withdrawn after Charter Application regarding violations of Sections 7, 8 and 10(b) of the Charter.
