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Charges of impaired driving, dangerous driving and mischief over $5,000.00 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice.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Charges of Impaired Driving, Over 80, and G2 Licence infraction withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.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. |
