Impaired Driving, Over 80, Dangerous Driving and other Driving-related Offences
Regina v. S.G. (2010)
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario
Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger advanced a Constitutional
challenge to the “evidence to the contrary” provision of the Criminal Code,
recently amended by Bill C-2, in July of 2008. A detailed Affidavit was
developed by the defence along with a detailed disclosure motion. As a result
of the defence challenge to the new law and the low readings, the charge was
withdrawn in favour of a plea to careless driving under s. 130 of the
Highway
Traffic Act.
Regina v. Ferguson (2009)
Charges of Impaired Driving and Over 80
withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client’s vehicle was found at
the side of the road in a ditch with deep snow. The client was arrested for
care and control and eventually gave readings more than twice the legal limit.
The client had advised police that he was not the driver, but was charged as
having care and control and no one else being around as the alleged driver.
What defence counsel Joseph Neuberger discovered by careful review of the
disclosure and from his client was that the police had taken 22 minutes to
transport the client to the police station. The station ought to have been only
a few minute drive. The police had in fact gone for dinner while leaving the
client locked in the back of the police cruiser. A detailed Charter Application
was filed alleging violations of the client’s section 7, 9 and 10(b) rights
along with an Affidavit from the client and a map showing the distances. As a
result, the Crown agreed with the defence that this was an impermissible
violation of the client’s rights and as a result all charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. S.D. (2009)
Charges of impaired driving and Over 80 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, after extensive review of the evidence and potential challenge by defence counsel, Joseph Neuberger, to the recent amendments altering the “evidence to the contrary” defence.
Regina. v. Cooke (2009)
Charges of "Over 80"
dismissed pursuant to defence counsel Stacey Nichols cross-examining the officer
with regard to discrepancies surrounding the timing of the
samples.
Regina v. Mohamed (2009)
Client found not guilty after trial in the Ontario
Court of Justice based upon a “bolus” drinking defence. The accused testified
that he consumed whisky 20 to 30 minutes prior to being stopped by police. The
readings that were 161 mg and 153 mg were consistent with his pattern of
drinking, but as explained through expert evidence, at the time the client was
stopped by police, the alcohol he consumed would have only been 50% absorbed and
he would have been under the legal limit at the time of driving. Defence lawyer
Joseph Neuberger argued that this amount to “evidence to the contrary” and that
the client ought to be acquitted. The evidence of all three defence witnesses
were accepted and the client was found not guilty.
Regina v. Gorkhoran (2009)
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of
Justice prior to setting the trial date. The readings were 103, and 105. The
defence was prepared advance a constitutional challenge to the new "evidence to
the contrary" provision under the Criminal Code. Given the low readings, the
charges were withdrawn in favour of the client pleading guilty to the Highway
Traffic Offence of Careless Driving.
Regina v. Singh (2009)
Charges of Impaired Driving and Over 80 withdrawn at
trial in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to the commencement of an
application under s. 11(b) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings due to
unreasonable delay of 11 months from the date when the trial was set. In
addition, the defence was brining a "last drink" defence with credible evidence
that at the time the client was stopped by police, the blood alcohol
concentration was under the legal limit.
Regina v. A.L. (2009)
Client acquitted of Impaired Driving and Drive Over 80 charges in Burlington after trial in which David Rose successfully cross-examined on time of driving, and indicators of impairment.
Regina v. H.B. (2009)
Stunt Driving charges are thrown out after David Rose successfuly challenges charging document.
Regina v. R.S. (2009)
Client found not guilty of Over 80 charge after trial in Newmarket, Ontario. David Rose successfully cross-examines witnesses on timing of accident.
Regina v. W.G. (2009)
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn prior to trial due to the low
readings and very serious issue of breach of client's section 8 right to be free
from unreasonable search. There were insufficient grounds to arrest the
client. As such, the charge was withdrawn.
Regina v. M.S. (2009)
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn prior to trial due to the low
readings and issues raised by the defence regarding a breach of the client's
right to counsel of choice and the constitutionality of the new "evidence to the
contrary" provision.
Regina v. B. 2007
Charges of Dangerous Driving causing bodily harm after serious accident on Steeles Avenue. Lawyer David Rose successfully attacked sufficiency of Crown evidence in Court for 3 days in Newmarket Courthouse after which Crown withdrew charges.
Regina v. C.L. 2008
R. v. C.L. 2008
Crown withdrew Charge of Over 80 at trial after lawyer David Rose filed Application alleging Charter breaches including Right to Counsel, Unreasonable Seizure, Right to Trial in Reasonable Time.
Regina v. T.M. 2008
R. v. T.M. 2008
Charges of Impaired Driving and Drive Over 80 withdrawn by Crown at trial after lawyer David Rose files Application alleging Charter breaches including Rights to Counsel, Right to Full Disclosure, Right to be tried within a Reasonable Time.
Regina v. J.J. 2008
R. v. J.J. 2008
Client was charged with Over 80. Lawyer David Rose brought Constiutional Application alleging breach of client's rights under s. 10(b) because of language difficulties. Crown accepted breach and stayed charge.
Regina v. W.G. 2008
R. v. W.G. 2008
Client had charges of Impaired Driving and Drive Over 80 stayed after David Rose brought application to stay charges alleging various Charter Breaches, including Right to Complete Disclosure, Right to be tried in a reasonable time.
Regina v. Borushynski 2008
R. v. Borushynski 2008
Client was acquitted of Charge of Dangerous Driving after 2 day trial where David Rose successfully attacked credibility of investigating OPP officer.
Regina v. I (D) 2009
R. v. I(D.) 2009
Charges of Over 80 and Impaired Driving stayed after David Rose successfully argues for a stay of proceedings based on a breach of the client's right to be tried in a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.
Regina v. A.L. (2009)
Charge of Over 80 with readings of 100 and 98 was withdrawn prior to trial in favour of a plea to a careless driving charge under the
Highway Traffic Act. The Crown agreed to the resolution based upon the low readings, and the challenge by the defence of the new legislation on "evidence to the contrary."
Regina v. D.V. (2009)
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn at trial on basis of constitutional challenge to the new 'evidence to the contrary' provision.
Regina v. Khan (2009)
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn prior to trial on the basis of defence challenge to Bill C-2 altering the 'evidence to the contrary' defence. Counsel Joseph Neuberger and Stacey Nichols brought comprehensive challenge to the new law that will be heard in 2009. However, on the basis of the application and the low readings in this case, the defence convinced the Crown to not proceed on the charge of Over 80.
Regina v. C.C. (2008)
Charges of Impaired and Over 80 withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to section 11(b) application brought by defence alleging unreasonable delay in bringing case to trial.
Regina v. Clarke (2008)
Client acquitted of Over 80 Care and Control after comprehensive defence accepted by Court negating evidence presented by Crown Attorney.
Regina v. Padley (2008)
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in response to defence challenge to Bill C-2, alleging the new evidence provision is unconstitutional.
Regina v. Bennett (2008)
Charges of refuse breath sample and impaired driving dismissed at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. After detailed and thorough cross-examination, the trial judge concluded that both officers were inconsistent and that there was a lack of evidence on the impaired driving charge. In addition, the trial judge concluded that based upon the evidence of the client and a defence witness, there was no refusal based upon erroneous advise of a friend who was a corporate lawyer. Accordingly, client found not guilty of the charges.
Regina v. Zandi (2008)
Charges of impaired driving, dangerous driving and mischief over $5,000.00 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger took over the file from previous counsel who had been defending the case for over one year. Aggressive pressure by defence to assess the case and the evidence, combined with a defence investigation resulted in the Crown withdrawing all charges prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.
Regina v. L.D. (2008)
Charges of Impaired Care and Control and "Over 80" dismissed in the Ontario Court of Justice after a lengthy trial conducted by Stacey Nichols. Cross examination of civilian witnesses and police officers revealed inconsistencies in the Crown's case, ultimately rebutting the presumption under the Criminal Code that the client was in care and control of the vehicle.
Regina v. Zavzel (2008)
Client found not guilty of Over 80 after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger advanced an 'evidence to the contrary' defence based upon the evidence of the client and an independent witness. Thorough preparation of the client and his witness resulted in the court accepting both witnesses as credible and trustworthy. The evidence of the defence expert toxicologist was accepted. As such, the charge was dismissed.
Regina v. F.C. (2008)
Charges of Dangerous Driving and Racing withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice after detailed attack on the Crown theory.
Regina v. Olenykov (2008)
Charges of Impaired Driving, Over 80, and G2 Licence infraction withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence Charter Application to exclude evidence conceded by the Crown resulting in the withdrawal of all charges.
Regina v. Turek (2007)
Client acquitted at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of charge of Over 80 after trial based upon finding of credible 'evidence to the contrary' rebutting the readings of the intoxilyzer breath machine.
Regina v. Pabla (2007)
Client found not guilty of impaired driving and Over 80 in the Ontario Court of Justice. Skillful cross-examination of the officers elicited inconsistencies in their observations of the driving of the accused. Further, evidence disclosed bolus drinking which could not be disproved by the Crown. As a result the client was acquitted of both charges.
Regina v. Moore (2007)
Charge of Over 80 stayed as Application in the Ontario Court of Justice to stay the charge due to unreasonable delay of 13.5 months successful.
Regina v. Traicheff (2007)
Client acquitted of charge of Over 80 in the Ontario Court of Justice following successful Application to exclude the intoxilyzer readings due to violation of client's right to counsel of choice.
Regina v. Anderson (2007)
Client acquitted of charge of Over 80 after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence "evidence to the contrary" was accepted by the trial judge as both credible and reliable thus raising a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the readings of 178 and 181.
Regina v. K.(B.) (2007)
Charge of Fail to Comply dismissed by trial judge after counsel's successful cross-examination of arresting officer showing that the elements of offence were not made out.
Regina v. G.(M.) (2007)
Charge of "Over 80" dismissed at request of Crown Attorney after counsel's successful cross-examination of police officer regarding time of Accused's driving. Crown agreeing pursuant to cross-examination that essential elements of the offence not established.
Regina v. J.C. (2007)
Client acquitted of Impaired Driving and Over 80 charges after trial. Client charged with Impaired Driving and Drive Over 80. After cross-examination fo the arresting officer during a trial before Mr. Justice Getliffe, client was acquitted of the Impaired Driving Charges. Client was also acquitted of the Over 80 charge after a successful Charter Application to exclude the breath readings. The Ontario Provincial Police made insufficient efforts to put the accused in touch with the lawyer he asked for, and when he was later put in touch with Duty Counsel, there was insufficient privacy during the conversation. As a result there were two breaches of the accused's rights to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.
Regina v. M.F.(2007)
charges of impaired operation and over 80 stayed in the Ontario Court of Justice upon a finding by the trial judge that the Applicant's rights as guaranteed by s. 11(b) of the Charter were violated, because of an unreasonable delay in bringing the case to trial.
Regina v. Jurado (2007)
client found not guilty at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of charge of Refuse breath sample, after detailed cross-examination of the arresting officer about the client's ability to understand and comprehend the demand.
Regina v. Nadarajah (2007)
client found not guilty at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice on charges of impaired driving, and Over 80 (readings of 280 and 320) after succesful cross-examination of the arresting officer and the independent witness. Charter Application successful in excluding on scene statements of the client.
Regina v. G(P) (2007)
Charge over "Over 80" dismissed pursuant to counsel successfully arguing that client's section 10(b) rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated as he was not afforded his rights to counsel.
Regina v. Ali (2007)
charges of Over 80 and impaired driving withdrawn after successful arguement that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction as there was no evidence of time of driving.
Regina v. S.C. (2007)
client acquitted in the Ontario Court of Justice of a charge of Over 80 after Charter Application alleging s.10(b) rights to counsel violation was successful and the readings were excluded.
Regina v. Kaufman (2006)
charges of Over 80 and Impaired Driving withdrawn just prior to trial as a result of Charter challenge to the detention and search of the client giving rise to the breath readings.
Regina v. Lyn (2006)
charge of Over 80 withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice after Crown accepts "evidence to the contrary" as a viable defence and thereby reduced the Crown's prospect of conviction. The Crown conceded the issue and the charge was withdrawn.
Regina v. M.S. (2006)
client acquitted at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of a charge of Over 80. Cross examination of police officers established that the client appeared, at the time of the investigation, in a sober condition setting the foundation for the "evidence to the contrary" defence. Testimony of the client, the independent witness and the defence expert was accepted resulting in a finding of not guilty.
Regina v. Braimoh (2006)
charge of Refuse Roadside Breath Test withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.
Regina v. Buxton (2006)
client acquitted at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of the charge of care and control while over 80, after the trial judge accepted the defence "evidence to the contrary".
Regina v. Trieu Nguyen (2006)
client acquitted after trial before the Ontario Court of Justice. Client was pulled over by police for travelling 40 km per hour as stated by police to have been at a rate of speed that was dangerously below the speed limit, thus justifying the police stopping the client and then administering the tests. Defence Application under s. 9 and 8 of the Charter for a violation of the client's right to be free from arbitrary detention and search was successful and the readings were excluded. Client was found not guilty of the offence.
Regina v. Pena (2006)
Client found not guilty of the charge of Over 80 after trial before the Ontario Court of Justice. The officer who conducted the intoxilyzer breath test testifed as to observations of the client's impairment that were not included in his Alcohol Influence Report/notes. Detailed and vigorous cross-examination on this point resulted in the Trial Judge rejecting the evidence of the Breath Technician. In addition evidence provided by the defendant and his independent witness was accepted by the Court giving rise to "evidence to the contrary". Accordingly, the client was found not guilty of the charge.
Regina v. Farwell (2006)
Charge of Refuse Breath Sample Approved Screening Device, s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada, withdrawn at the pre-trial stage after discussions with Crown Attorney about the frailties of the police evidence and the police refusing to allow the client to contact duty counsel on his personal cell phone.
Regina v. Squire (2006)
Client acquitted after two day trial of Refuse Breath Sample in the Ontario Court of Justice. Client was believed based upon the "last chance" doctrine.
Regina v. Cheung (2005)
Client acquitted after three day trial on a charge of Dangerous Driving causing bodily harm. Extensive cross-examination of Crown witnesses, including the accident reconstructionist, and careful defence use of our own accident specialist and detailed legal analysis resulted in the client being found not guilty of the allegation.
Regina v. Phillips (2005)
Charge of impaired driving withdrawn after Charter Application granted excluding statements of the accused together with evidence of sobriety observations made by the arresting officer.
Regina v. Ceballos (2005)
Acquitted after trial on charges of over 80 and possession of credit card reading device. Defence raised credible, reliable "evidence to the contrary" as well as an innocent explanation as to the possession of the credit card reading device. After extensive cross-examination of the police officer, witnesses, and detailed submissions, the client was found not guilty of both charges.
Regina v. Grahovac (2005)
Client acquitted after trial on charges of over 80 and impaired driving. Client was seen crossing over the middle white line and was stopped by police. After investigation client was arrested and eventually provided readings of 160 and 170. During the search of the client's car an open beer can that was cold to the touch and was still containing beer was found. The arresting officer failed to detail in his notes the time of driving and the time of the stop. A Charter Application to exclude all statements of the accused and sobriety test results was successful. Detailed cross examination of the arresting and assisting officer on the issue of time of driving resulted in a finding of not guilty on both charges.
Regina v. Shum (2005)
Acquitted after trial on charges of over 80.
Regina v. Valderve (2005)
Not guilty after trial on charges of impaired driving and over 80.
Regina v. Dinardo (2005)
Acquitted after trial of charge of over 80. Charter Application seeking to exclude all roadside statements successful. Crown unable to prove that the accused was the driver.
Regina v. Saldanha (2005)
Charges of impaired driving and over 80 stayed after successful Charter Application alleging a breach of the client's 11(b) Charter rights, protecting a trial within a reasonable time.
Regina v. Finn. (2005)
Client acquitted after trial of charge over 80. Defence successfully proffered "evidence to the contrary" which undermined accuracy of the intoxalyzer readings.
Regina v. De Karic. (2005)
Charge of over 80 stayed at trial due to violation of client's Section 11(b) right to a trial within a reasonable time. Defence Charter Application successful and charge was stayed accordingly.
Regina v. Schiebel. (2004)
Charges of over 80 and impaired driving. Acquitted after trial.
Regina v. M.S. (2004)
Acquitted after trial on charges of impaired driving and over 80, subsequent to successful Charter Application for violation of client's Section 10(b) rights.
Regina v. G.S. (2004)
Acquitted after trial on charges of impaired driving, over 80, speeding, and graduated licence infraction.
Regina v. Samai (2004)
Charges of impaired driving, over 80. Acquitted after trial.
Regina v. Sahota (2004)
Acquitted after trial on charge of over 80. Defence presented "evidence to the contrary" together with expert evidence, resulting in the acquittal.
Regina v. Hannah (2004)
Acquitted after trial on charges of impaired driving, over 80.
Regina v. Alves (2004)
Acquitted after trial on charges of impaired driving, over 80.
Regina v. R.A. (2004)
Client acquitted by Judge Purvis in Collingwood on charges of Impaired Driving and Refuse Breath Sample after successful argument that Ontario Provincial Police improperly arrested client resulting in a violation of s. 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Regina v. M.C. (2004)
Charges of impaired operation and over 80. Withdrawn after successful Charter Application regarding exclusion of all statements made by the accused at the scene of the accident.
Regina v. Kopicanyova (2004)
Charges of over 80 and impaired driving. Withdrawn after Charter Application.
Regina v. H.P. (2004)
Charges of over 80 and impaired driving. Withdrawn after Charter Application regarding violations of Sections 7, 8 and 10(b) of the Charter.
Regina v. Siddhu (2003)
Charges of over 80 and impaired. Acquitted after trial.
Regina v. M.L. (2003)
Client found not guilty of charges of Over 80 and Possession of Cocaine after successful Charter Argument that Peel Regional Police should not have investigated client in parking lot of Brampton nightclub.
Regina v. J.S. (2003)
Acquitted after trial on charge of refusal to provide roadside breathalyzer sample.
Regina v. Charlton (2003)
Acquitted after trial on charge of over 80.
Regina v. Hazell (2003)
Charge of over 80. Not guilty.
Regina v. M(M.) (2003)
Client found not guilty after trial on charges of Impaired Driving, Drive Over 80.
Regina v. Duric (2003)
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn after attack on breathalyzer evidence.
Regina v. Grewal (2003)
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn after attack on breathalyzer evidence.
Regina v. Formica (2002)
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn after attack on breathalyzer evidence.
Regina v. Falconer (2002)
Charges of impaired operation and Over 80. Acquitted at trial.
Regina v. Sammut (2002)
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn after presenting evidence contrary by defence.
Regina v. Alves (2002)
Charges of Over 80 x2 client found not guilty.
Regina v. Hannah (2002)
Charges of Over 80, client acquitted at trial.
Regina v. Kershaw (2002)
Charges of Over 80, client acquitted at trial.
Regina v. F.H. (2002)
Charges of fall to comply with a disposition, possession under, withdrawn.
Regina v. Sositko (2002)
Charges of dangerous driving. Not guilty after trial.
Regina v. Jones (2001)
Client acquitted of charges of Over 80.
Regina v. A.R. (2001)
Client acquitted of Refuse Screening Device Charge after trial.
Regina v. Jones (2001)
Charge of Failing to Remain at Scene of Accident withdrawn after Defence Application alleging unreasonable delay.
Regina v. Karametch (2000) O.J. No. 3744
Conviction for Over 80 overturned and acquittal entered.
Back to Recent Successes