Service
Impaired Driving
Drinking and Driving
For this reason, it is important to retain a lawyer who has a thorough understanding of the technical defences available to you.
Types of drinking and driving charges:
Over 80
Impaired Driving/Care or Control
Refuse Breath Sample
If your job requires you to drive, you may risk losing your livelihood.
Subsequent convictions can lead to even harsher consequences, including jail time, larger fines, and extended probation.
However, there are now opportunities to reduce the mandatory minimum one-year driving prohibition (for first-time offenders) by taking advantage of new provincial legislation.
Defences Available
Identity-Sometimes the Crown is unable to prove who was driving.
Reasonable and Probable Grounds – The Crown must establish a proper foundation for the breath demand to have been made.
Right’s to Counsel – Everyone is entitled to speak to a lawyer before providing breath samples at the police station.
Technical Issues- – The Crown needs to present its evidence in full compliance of all technical requirements in the Criminal Code.
Impaired Driving Cases
R v. O.M.
Charge: Impaired & Refuse Blood Demand
Result: The matter proceeded to trial, however, was resolved midway with a plea to Leave Roadway Not in Safety pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act. This was due to legal issues surrounding an egregious breach of Rights to Counsel and the Right to Re-Consult a Lawyer.
R v P.M.
Charge: Care or Control & Over 80
Result: Client was found intoxicated in the sleeper cabin of the tractor trailer. This matter proceeded to trial. We were able to establish that the back of the tractor trailer is meant to be a living/sleeping quarter, the driver had no intention to drive and there was no risk the vehicle would be set into motion. The court found our client not guilty; the charges were DISMISSED.
R v. A.S.
Charge: Impaired Driving & Over 80
Result: This matter proceeded to trial as there was a legal issue surrounding a breach of Rights to Counsel. The client’s right to counsel of choice was violated when they were not permitted to contact a third party to facilitate counsel of choice. The Judge found the client not guilty and they were ACQUITTED of the charges.
R v. S.S.
Charge: Over 80
Result: This case proceeded to trial and was resolved mid-way through trial with a plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. This was due to issues surrounding a serious breach of Rights to Counsel of Choice and due to delay in the case when trial continuation dates were required.
It is important to remember that every allegation of drinking and driving is a fact specific inquiry.
Consulting a lawyer will assist you with identifying potential defences to this type of allegation.