Mr. V was in a restaurant and unhappy with his food order. After some argument with staff, staff called the police against Mr. V. The staff complained to police that Mr. V was impaired and driving.
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.
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.
CASE STUDY: Charges Dismissed – Impaired Driving and Over 80 [Possession of a Schedule I Substance Dropped Pre-Trial]
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.
While the two approached their vehicle the plan was not to drive, but to retrieve Stag tickets to sell to their friends, and then to wait for a friend to pick them up. In fact, Mr. R still had an active tab in the bar at the time and had planned to return to the bar before leaving to pay it, and could not leave until he did so. Unaware of this, security called the police.
The story the complainant gave was filled with contradictions; both internal contradictions, and contradictions with the stories of the rest of the family. That said, the majority of the defence relied upon the uncorroborated evidence of the accused and other members of the family, making the case more complex.
His Honour agreed that, following the precedent of R. v. White  and R. v. Roberts  the statement given by Mr. S. implicating himself as the driver would be excluded as evidence.
CASE STUDY: Acquittal – Failure to Provide a Breath Sample into an Approved Screening Device in Oshawa
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.
CASE STUDY: Dismissal of Charges – BAC Over 80, Impaired Driving & Possession of Open Alcohol While Driving in Brantford
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.
Acquittal · Drinking & Driving Allegations · Justin Marchand · Toronto · Traffic Tickets, Provincial Offences & Tribunals
CASE STUDY: Acquittal – Over 80 mg, Failing to Have Insurance Card, & Passing by Driving off Roadway
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.
CASE STUDY: Acquittal – Care or Control of Motor Vehicle with More than 80mg of Alcohol in 100ml of Blood
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.