DRINKING & DRIVING
Serious Consequences
If you have no criminal record and you are found guilty of a drinking and driving related offence like impaired operation or over 80, you are subject to mandatory minimum penalties.
​
This means that no matter what your special circumstances are, the judge has to at a minimum: sentence you to a $1,000.00 fine and 1 year driving suspension. In addition, your insurance rate will skyrocket and you will have to do mandatory government programs.
​
Also, you will get a criminal record.
​
If you already have a criminal record for drinking and drive related offences, the judge may have to sentence to you a minimum of 30 days or even 120 days jail.
​
Therefore, it is often in your best interest to defend against these allegations.
​
Don’t think because you did it, you are guilty.
​
The Crown actually needs to prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This can be a very difficult onus for the Crown to prove.
​
You need a lawyer with a proven track record on successfully defending drinking and driving offences.
​
Drinking and driving is very technical and sometimes just 1 issue in the Crown’s case can be critical in the Crown proving their case. You need to speak to a lawyer to see if your case may have one of the many:
​
Can the Crown prove you were in care and control of a motor vehicle at the time of the offence?
Is there a rebuttable presumption available to you as why you were in the driver’s seat?
Were you Charter Rights violated?
Did the police have a lawful ground to pull you over and demand a sample of your breath?
Were the police following the proper time required to take the demand of your breath?
Were you drinking recently before you got pulled over?
Were the devices the police use working properly?
Is the paper work related to the devices in order?
These are only some of the possible defences that may be available to you.
​
After reviewing the disclosure, a lawyer should be able to tell you what options may be available to you.
​
Don’t plead guilty to an offence that will give you the same penalties after being found guilty after trial!
Call us now.
MY PREVIOUS RESULTS
R V K.T.
OPERATION OVER 80 MG/100 ML / IMPAIRED OPERERATION
John's client was pulled over after leaving the strip club. The officer said she pulled over KT when he made a wide turn. The Officer then observed John's client weaving his car in the lane. When the officer spoke to John's client, she smelled a large odor of alcohol coming from within the vehicle. John's client admitted to having a few drinks. John's client failed the ASD roadside test and was arrested for impaired operation. At the police station, John's client blew twice the legal limit and was charged according. At trial, John was able to secure a withdrawal of all criminal charges and John's client was able to continue to drive without any restrictions.
R V D.D.
DANGEROUS OPERATION / ASSAULT CAUSING BODILY HARM / MISCHIEF
John's client was charged with road rage after he followed another person in his motor vehicle. The altercation blew up when things became violent and lead to damage to the other person's car. John's client worked in the vulnerable sector and any findings of guilt would have lead to employment termination. John was able secure a withdrawal of all criminal code charges before trial. John's client did not lose his job and was able to continue living his life freely after the lapse in judgment.
R V T. T.
IMPAIRED OPERATION OVER 80 MG / 100 ML BLOOD, DRIVE SUSPENDED
John's client was alleged to be driving around a parking lot across from a police station where he tried to drive down a staircase. The car got stuck on the stairs and started to tetter tottor. Witnesses started yelling and police officers ran over almost immediately.
​
John's client failed the road side breath sample and then provided a breath sample almost twice the legal limit. He was also a suspended driver. John's client even admitted to being the driver and making a mistake.
​
At trial, John was able to effectively cross examine the police officers and bring a successful Charter Motion arguing that his client was unlawfully detained.
​
John's client was acquitted and found not guilty of all charges.
​
John's client continued to live his life without a criminal record and saved thousands of dollars in fines and insurance premiums.
RÂ V S. M.
IMPAIRED OPERATION OVER 80 MG / 100 ML BLOOD, DRIVING IMPAIRED
John’s client was not a Canadian citizen who came to Canada to better his life. After one too many beers after work one day, he was pulled over at RIDE program and charged with drinking and driving (operation over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood).
​
A criminal record would have had consequences on his client’s immigration status, ability to work, and ability to drive. Also there would have been huge financial penalties.
​
After a detailed disclosure review, the Crown seemed to have a very strong case.
​
However, John was able to bring a large paper defence – meaning, John defended his client by bringing literally every possible defence application. The sheer amount of response required by the Crown was impossible and the Crown agreed to withdraw the Criminal Code charge of operation over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.
R V F. M.
IMPAIRED OPERATION OVER 80 MG / 100 ML BLOOD, DRIVING IMPAIRED
John’s client was a young man who traveled a lot for school and work. He was just about to start a lucrative career in heavy machinery and required his driver’s license.
​
He only had his G2 licence, which meant he was suppose to have a zero blood alcohol content. After swerving all over the road, he was pulled over and charged with a drinking and driving related offence of impaired operation.
​
A criminal record would have had consequences on his client’s ability to work and ability to drive. Also there would have been huge financial penalties.
After a detailed disclosure review, the Crown would have an issue with proving the timing of last drink John’s client may have had. This is important because the alcohol testing machines the police use may provide incorrect results.
​
Also, John’s client was taking prescribed medication.
​
John was able to successfully negotiate with the Crown to withdraw the criminal charge of impaired operation.
R V C. P.
IMPAIRED OPERATION OVER 80 MG / 100 ML BLOOD, DRIVING IMPAIRED, OBSTRUCT POLICE
John’s client was a young professional soccer player who traveled for work. He was playing professional soccer around the world.
​
After leaving a wedding, the police allege John’s client was pulled over for swerving all over the road. The police then allege his client switched spots with the passenger to avoid getting charged. This was all caught on video in the police cruiser camera.
​
John’s client was charged with a drinking and driving offence and obstructing police by switching seats.
The case against John’s client was very strong. It seemed John’s client had no defence.
​
A criminal record would have had consequences on his client’s ability to work and ability to drive. Also there would have been huge financial penalties. There also may be issues with travel.
​
John’s client hired John before his first court date. This allowed John to start appearing for him right away and defending the record in court. John would complain about delay.
​
The Crown and police were slow at getting their case together. John brought a motion under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 11 – the right to have a trial within a reasonable amount of time. This motion meant that a judge could stay the drinking and driving charge, which meant that John’s client would not be guilty of the offence.
​
The Crown was worried about losing the strong case and agreed to withdraw the drinking and driving offence. The Crown also agreed to join John’s client on an absolute discharge for the obstruct police charge which meant that John’s client has no criminal record now.
R V. J. T.
IMPAIRED OPERATION OVER 80 MG/ 100 ML BLOOD, DRIVING IMPAIRED, DANGEROUS DRIVING
John’s client was a hard working family man in his 50s. After experiencing a breakdown, he drank a 26 ounce bottle of liquor and drove his car. He crashed into a tree and almost killed some bystanders. The police charged him with drinking and driving related offences and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.
​
Due to the seriousness and danger of the drinking and driving charge, the Crown was seeking a lengthy period of jail for John’s client.
​
John was able to organize a wellness plan that involved John’s client getting the help he needed. John presented a very strong defence to the Crown and Judge during numerous pre-trial meetings.
​
John was able to convince the Crown and Judge that jail was not necessary. John’s client happily was able to get probation instead of going to jail for a few months. John’s client did not spend 1 night in jail.
R V D. L.
IMPAIRED OPERATION OVER 80 MG / 100 ML BLOOD, DRIVING IMPAIRED
John's client had just left Fanny's Strip Club in North Bay when a police officer observed leaving the club and then swerving all over the road.
​
D.L. got pulled over right away and was ordered to provide a road side breathalyzer sample which had him blow over the legal limit. He was taken to the police station where he provided a suitable sample over 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood and was charged accordingly.
​
John was able to convince the Crown that the police officer did wait 15 minutes since his last drink which would have provided an incorrect sample and led to further illegal obtained evidence - D.L.'s breath sample.
​
The Crown agreed withdraw the criminal charges in exchange for D.L. pleading guilty to a Highway Traffic Act violation.