Acquittal

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is very clear in its protection of a person’s right to contact a lawyer upon arrest.

His Honour agreed that, following the precedent of R. v. White [1992] and R. v. Roberts [2018] the statement given by Mr. S. implicating himself as the driver would be excluded as evidence.

Mr. K was acquitted on the grounds that the Crown failed to prove that Mr. K.’s refusal to provide a breath sample was intentional and not a misunderstanding.

During the cross examination we focused on the violation of s.10(b), and revealed that there were actually major gaps in the officers recollection of the events at the station.

 It was clear to us that Mr. B’s name had been searched before police decided to arrest him. In the time the search was being conducted, no further indicia of impairment were noted by the officers.

When police arrived on scene, Mr. K was outside of his vehicle asking for police assistance. Officers then detected the odour of alcohol on his breath.

Mr. A was charged with Impaired Driving contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample contrary to s. 253(5) of the Criminal Code.

Our client, Mr. N, was a hard working 23 year old man, employed as a bricklayer. It was essential to our client that he keep his driver’s licence so that he could travel from job to jobs sites in the Chatham area.

We were successful in our arguments that there had been infringements of Mr. B's s. 8 and s. 9 Charter rights by the police, and further, that these breaches of Mr. B’s Charter rights were serious enough to justify the exclusion of the breath machine readings.

Following a rather serious accident, an individual was charged with criminal negligence causing bodily harm. What was their intent?

It was a slow night for Barrie police and Constable W. was doing what he sometimes did in those circumstances. He was parked outside a local night spot in the hope of catching impaired drivers as they were leaving. On that late September night he spotted a black Mercedes exiting the parking lot adjacent to the bar. He decided to follow. He followed the Mercedes onto the highway where he reported observing it twice touch the white shoulder line.

The officer made the demand that Mr. H provide a breath sample into the roadside breath alcohol screening device. Mr. H felt that he was being treated like a criminal. He asked if a friend could witness him blowing into the device, but the officer replied that they did not need an audience. He was also, at that time, not permitted to call a lawyer.

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.

Mr. G needed to avoid all the repercussions of the criminal record that would flow from a conviction of the Over 80 offence.

Ms. M had been at a local bar having a few drinks with a friend of hers.  As a result of being sexually harassed by a fellow patron (a tow truck driver), our client left the bar and drove to McDonald's for a snack.  The tow truck driver followed her out, and called the police to report a possible DUI. The reality is that the tow truck driver was hoping that our client would be arrested so he could tow the car and impound it for seven (7) days - perhaps earning $1,000 in the process.

Mr. G had been watching the CFL Grey Cup while he hung out with a few of his friends on the night of Sunday November 25 to Monday November 26, 2014. At the time, he was facing a serious financial burden as he was supporting his new, young family.  After entering the car with his friends, he turned towards the street from the parking garage but shortly made an additional turn to return to the parking garage. An officer, who was located across the street, grew suspicious that he should be entering the vehicle so late on a Sunday night / early Monday morning on Grey Cup day and decided to investigate.