Drinking & Driving Allegations

Mr. M was charged with operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of 80 and over mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood and operating a vehicle impaired in the city of Milton.

Mr. W’s position as a hockey coach, his new job, and his future goals to start a business and own a home were at risk. He’d been convicted for the same offence once before and knew a second conviction could be worse.

This client's trial dates were cancelled and she was free of the burden of fighting criminal charges far earlier than she thought she’d be.

Mr. M, a US military veteran and long-time law enforcement officer, was crossing the border into Canada to visit a casino in Niagara.

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

The case went to trial, during which the Crown decided to offer a deal: if Mr. Z would plead guilty to careless driving, the charges of Over 80 would be dropped.

Mr. S was free, unhindered by a criminal record, and the state was once again shown that rights cannot be violated based on assumption and suspicion alone.

Dan Lemaire’s familiarity with Charter rights often serves as a major asset for his clients, and Ms. C is a perfect example of this.

The outcome of Ms. M’s trial was not only a victory for Ms. M herself, but also for all those detained by the York Regional Police moving forward.

Mr. H wanted to avoid the criminal charges. We recognized the unfortunate circumstances Mr. H had found himself in and established a clear goal: have Mr. H’s charges reduced to a non-criminal charge.

Ms. D made it clear to us during our initial meetings that her greatest concern was avoiding the loss of her licence. While our greater goal was to help Ms. D avoid criminal sanctions at all, we aligned our focus on obtaining an outcome that did not result in the loss of Ms. D’s licence.

If Ms. C plead guilty to Careless Driving, a Highway Traffic Act offence that did not included a criminal record, and agreed to pay a reduced fine and adhere to certain driving conditions, they would drop the Over 80 charge.

The evidence collected after Mr. M told the officer he accepted duty counsel as his representation was deemed inadmissible, and the charges of over 80 were dismissed. Mr. M left the courtroom that day without fear that a criminal record might harm his business or his family.

After a number of discussions with the Crown Attorney and a number of Judicial Pre-Trials, the Crown agreed to amend the Mr. H’s charges and withdraw others. Mr. H entered a plea of guilty to Over 80, simple assault and breach. All other charges were withdrawn.

An officer of the Belleville police department received the call just after 9:00 p.m. A citizen had phoned Dispatch to report a red pickup track driving erratically.

Our client Ms. G was operating an ATV when she struck a tree, sustaining major injuries to her head with a large cut. Charges were laid two months later after a blood analysis confirmed our client had alcohol in her body while she was operating the ATV.

Less than one week before trial the Crown ceased with the prosecution and offered to withdraw Ms. H's charges for a plea to a Highway Traffic Act offence of careless driving.

There were no restrictions or limitations placed on our client's driving privileges and he did not get a criminal conviction. All charges were withdrawn.

With an Over 80 charge, our client was able to avoid a criminal record and losing his driver’s licence as a result of cross-examination.

We successfully appealed our client's conviction. This was a novel issue that had not previously been decided and was reported in a reputable law journal.

In this case, the Crown agreed that our client's rights had been breached by police, and the file was resolved with a creative plea.

Our client, a young first time offender with hopes of attending university and starting a career, was able to avoid a criminal record as well as implications for his driver's license.

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.

The judge noted that while both the Crown and defence had presented a substantial amount of evidence he was concerned with the lack of certainty the Breath Tech had in the accuracy of the Intoxilyzer 8000c reading at the time.

 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, a young man, aged 34 found himself in difficulties with the police, and retained me to assist with his file.

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.

Kingston Police charged Mr. N with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operate a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.

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.

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.

On a frigid January night, just before midnight, an officer in an unmarked car saw two snowmobiles, one on the shoulder of the road and one on its side in the ditch. As he approached, the driver of the downed snowmobile was able to right his machine and drive it to the shoulder. The other snowmobiler waved the officer on, not aware of who he was.

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.

A security guard at a hydro project got a call in the middle of the night from a group of people who said that their truck had slid off the road and needed a tow. He called the police. When the police arrived they found a pickup full of people, completely off the road, in a snow bank. They found sealed cans of Budweiser in the bushes and some cans in the roadway.

Both the impaired and the over 80 charges were dismissed as a result of the the judge ruling that the officer's testimony was not credible.

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

About an hour after dawn on a clear, dry Sunday morning in May, in the heart of Muskoka, police were dispatched to a vehicle roll over. They arrived at the scene to find the vehicle on its roof. The driver Mr. N and his passenger were standing nearby as was a bystander. Mr. N was 20 years old and was in cottage country for a weekend away with a buddy. 

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. N had a momentary lapse in his judgment and decided to get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle after having a few too many drinks. The arresting officer noted that he had witnessed Mr. N’s vehicle cross the centre line on several occasions and briefly drive south in a northbound lane.

Ms. B had just recently arrived back to Canada. Her plane had only just landed not long before she was stopped by the Ontario R.I.D.E. program as she drove home from the airport. She explained to the officer that she was feeling jetlagged but the officer could smell an odour of alcohol coming from her breath. She was placed under arrest after failing the approved screening device test.

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.