Justin Marchand

In the Court’s judgment, the court agreed with Mr. Marchand’s argument that the observations by police did not reach a threshold suspicion to authorize a demand for a breath sample into an Approved Screening Device.

Mr. M had no criminal record and a legitimate home business. The goal for bail was to permit Mr. M to continue working without undue hardship. Nonetheless, the combination of drugs and guns charges, together, did require a restrictive bail plan. The bar to release was high.

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.

The Crown agreed that it was a small incident and that it would be best to avoid criminal sanctions. Community service was discussed, and in the end, the Crown agreed to a peace bond.

The Crown agreed to a common law peace bond. While it was not Mr. B’s ideal goal, it did result in a withdrawal of the charges in exchange for an agreement to be of good behaviour.

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

While shopping at a Sephora, Ms. N purchased some product, but concealed others and left the store without paying. She had never done anything criminal before; her record was completely clean.

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.

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.

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.

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.