Skip to content

CASE DETAILS

Charge(s): are and Control of a Motor Vehicle After Having Consumed Alcohol in Such a Quantity That the Concentration Thereof in his Blood Exceeded 80 mg in 100 Millilitres of Blood
Location: Oshawa, Ontario
Our Client(s): Mr. T.G.
Complainant(s): Durham Regional Police Service
Lawyer/Paralegal: T. Edmund Chan
Edmund Chan - Criminal LawyerLEARN MORE

Please Note: Past results not predictive of future results.

The Background

On a very cold winter night, entering the early hours of the morning of Christmas Eve, two young men left a bar after a night of drinking. One of them, Mr. T.G. asked the owner of the bar if he could leave his car there overnight and was given permission to do so. He then asked the bartender to call him a cab. While waiting for the cab, the two young men sat in Mr. T.G.’s car to keep warm. Mr. T.G. was sitting in the driver’s seat when the police showed up and arrested him for being in “care and control” of the vehicle while having a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit. Mr. T.G. was a young man in his early twenties, with no criminal record who was planning to go to teacher’s college in the fall. He had lost his mother to cancer and had buried her just a few days earlier. He had never been in trouble before.

The Goals

It was crucial that he avoid the criminal record that would result from conviction on this charge. He could not have a criminal record in his chosen career.

The Strategy

The issue would be whether Mr. T. G. was in care and control of the vehicle. There is a presumption in Canadian criminal law that a person found in the driver’s seat of a vehicle is in care and control. This presumption may be rebutted with evidence. To get such evidence, we would call the bar owner and staff as witnesses who would corroborate Mr. T.G.’s story that he had that night taken steps to not drive, which included getting permission to leave his vehicle and asking that a cab be called. We believed that Mr. T.G. himself would be a credible witness and would therefore also call him to testify. We would, as well, carefully cross-examine the arresting officer to glean additional evidence that could demonstrate a lack of intention to drive.

The Results

The Crown called one witness but we called three. We effectively cross-examined the Crown’s witness (the officer) and were able to present our three witnesses as credible. We successfully rebutted the presumption. Mr. T.G. was therefore acquitted of the charge.

FREE CONSULTATION

Tell us a bit about yourself and the situation.  Completing this form helps us book your free consultation with the most appropriate lawyer at our firm and at a time that is most convenient to you.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Let's start with the basics. What is your name?
Acknowledgement
More information on our privacy policy can be read here: Privacy Policy.

Please note that the submission of this form does not mean that we are your retained lawyer. This is a form establishing preliminary information regarding the scheduling of a free, 30-minute consultation. Any personal information collected through means such as consultation forms will not be conveyed or shared except to the extent necessary to properly represent you and your case. Aitken Robertson will never sell any personal information. We value your privacy.

SMS Disclosure: By providing a telephone number for SMS/Text purposes and submitting this form you are consenting to be contacted by SMS text message. Message & data rates may apply. You can reply STOP to opt-out of further messaging.

Back To Top