Skip to content

CASE DETAILS

Charge(s): Impaired Driving, Failure to Comply with Release Order
Location: Toronto
Our Client(s): Mr. B
Year: 2016
Lawyer/Paralegal: Edwin Boeve
Edwin Boeve - Criminal LawyerLEARN MORE

Please Note: Past results not predictive of future results.

The Background

Our client, Mr. B, had been out on bail for a previous criminal charge when he found himself in more trouble. He was charged with driving while impaired by a drug and failure to comply with a release order. He was accused of speeding and weaving, and there was an alleged altercation with a civilian witness at the scene.

For the Crown’s case in the impaired driving charge, the key evidence was the urine sample that Mr. B had provided on the scene, as well as the civilian witness testimony regarding the provision of this sample.

The Goals

Mr. B was facing potentially harsh consequences for these charges, particularly as he had been out on bail for other charges during the alleged events. The goal was therefore to mitigate the consequences of these charges by securing a non-criminal resolution or a dismissal of the charges. Mr. B had two separate trials for these offences.

The Strategy

At the first trial, Mr. Boeve attacked the reliability of the evidence of both the civilian witness and of the urine sample. In particular, he highlighted the unreliability of the witness and his inability to confirm that he and the police had kept visual control of Mr. B while he had been providing that sample. With the issue of the potential contamination of the sample having been raised by Mr. Boeve, he particularly highlighted the inability of the witness to recall whether the container of the sample had been dropped.

On the charge of the breach of a release order, Mr. Boeve brought as a witness Mr. B’s probation officer, who indicated that Mr. B had not fully understood his release conditions.

The Results

Both trials were successful. After the first trial began, based on the arguments made by Mr. Boeve, the Crown offered a minor ticket in exchange for a withdrawal of the impaired driving charges. On the charge of the breach of a release order, the judge accepted the evidence that Mr. B had not understood all of his release conditions, and therefore found him “not guilty.” The client was delighted with each outcome.

FREE CONSULTATION

Tell us a bit about yourself and the situation.  Completing this form helps us book your free consultation with the most appropriate lawyer at our firm and at a time that is most convenient to you.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Let's start with the basics. What is your name?
Acknowledgement
More information on our privacy policy can be read here: Privacy Policy.

Please note that the submission of this form does not mean that we are your retained lawyer. This is a form establishing preliminary information regarding the scheduling of a free, 30-minute consultation. Any personal information collected through means such as consultation forms will not be conveyed or shared except to the extent necessary to properly represent you and your case. Aitken Robertson will never sell any personal information. We value your privacy.

SMS Disclosure: By providing a telephone number for SMS/Text purposes and submitting this form you are consenting to be contacted by SMS text message. Message & data rates may apply. You can reply STOP to opt-out of further messaging.

Back To Top