Recent Notable Cases

Case
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.

Case
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  Charges of impaired driving, dangerous driving and mischief over $5,000.00 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice.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.

Case
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.

Case
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  Charges of Impaired Driving, Over 80, and G2 Licence infraction withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.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.

Case
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.

Case
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.

Case
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.

Case
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.

Case
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.

Case
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.

Case
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.

Case
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 fo 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.

Case
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.

Case
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.

Case
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 succesful cross-examination of the arresting officer and the independent witness. Charter Application successful in excluding on scene statements of the client.

Case
Regina v. G(P) (2007)
  charge over "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.

Case
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.

Case
Regina v. Ali (2007)
  charges of Over 80 and impaired driving withdrawn after successful arguement that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction as there was no evidence of time of driving.

Case
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.

Case
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.

Case
Regina v. Braimoh (2006)
  charge of Refuse Roadside Breath Test withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Case
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.

Case
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".

Case
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.

Case
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 testifed 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.

Case
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.

Case
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.

Case
R. v. Ceballos (2005)
Charges
Over 80 and 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.

Case
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.

Case
R. v. Shum (2005)
Charges
Charges of Over 80.
Outcome
Acquitted after trial.

Case
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.

Case
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.

Case
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.

Case
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 intoxalyzer readings.

Case
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.

Case
R. v. Schiebel. (2004)
Charges
Charges of over 80 and impaired driving.
Outcome
Acquitted after trial.

Case
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.

Case
R. v. G.S. (2004)
Charges
Charges of impaired driving, over 80, speeding, and graduated licence infraction.
Outcome
Acquitted after trial on all charges.

Case
R. v. Samai (2004)
Charges
Charges of impaired driving, over 80.
Outcome
Acquitted after trial.

Case
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.

Case
R. v. Hannah (2004)
Charges
Charges of impaired driving, over 80.
Outcome
Acquitted after trial on both charges.

Case
R. v. Alves (2004)
Charges
Charges of impaired driving, over 80.
Outcome
Acquitted after trial on both charges.

Case
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.

Case
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.

Case
R. v. Kopicanyova (2004)
Charges
Charges of over 80 and impaired driving.
Outcome
Charges withdrawn after Charter Application.

Case
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.

Disclaimer: The material on this site is not intended as legal advice. The information conveys general information on legal issues commonly encountered by persons facing drinking and driving related charges in the Province of Ontario.
If you are charged with an offence, you should contact a criminal lawyer.

© 2005. Neuberger Rose LLP. All Rights Reserved.
Website design, search engine optimization and promotion by Digital eM-space.