Toronto

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.

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 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.

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. R was detained by security guards at an entertainment venue late one August evening after he and another party were separated for a consensual fight. Mr. R was injured after the fight and was treated for his injuries by EMS, but subsequently placed in the venue’s holding cells. Security alleges that while Mr. R was in the holding cell he repeatedly kicked the door, damaging both the door and the frame.

Facebook messages combined with an effective cross examination of the complainant on the first day of trial proved compelling. The Crown agreed to drop the charges if Mr. A was willing to sign a peace bond. He did so happily.

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.

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.

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.

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.