Majuran S. – December 23 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and Over 80. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. The trial judge was convinced that the arresting officer lacked lawful grounds to arrest the defendant for impaired driving and to demand that he provide breath samples into a breath testing instrument. The trial judge was further convinced that this lack of grounds was serious enough to justify the exclusion of the breath readings from evidence. As a result, there was no other evidence supporting the Over 80 charge and it was dismissed. The court accepted that the remaining evidence of impairment was too weak to justify a conviction on the impaired driving charge and that charge was dismissed, as well.

Guillaume F. – December 18 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Excess Blood Alcohol. The defendant had been experiencing a mental health crisis and it was agreed that the equities of the situation supported a non-criminal resolution. A plea was entered to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine and a 6 month driver’s licence suspension. Upon completion of the plea the criminal charge was withdrawn.

Alexander D. – December 11 – The defendant was charged with numerous firearm offences after being found in the residence of an acquaintance during the execution of a search warrant where a gun was located.  The charges were very serious and the defendant was liable to a lengthy jail sentence if convicted.  He maintained he was innocent and steps were taken to schedule a trial.  Discussions with the Crown Attorney continued and a trial was avoided when, after agreeing to sign a declaration affirming that he had no knowledge of the gun, all of the criminal charges were withdrawn.

Djamah M. – December 10 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the limit. During cross-examination of the arresting officer, it came to light that evidence that should have been disclosed to the defence before the trial was not so disclosed. During a break in proceedings, the prosecutor was persuaded to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the non-criminal charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. She was assessed a fine with no suspension of her driving privileges. Upon her entering her guilty plea to Careless Driving, the prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.

Naresh R. – Dec. 4 – The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while over the legal limit of alcohol. The charge was dismissed after a trial. The trial judge ruled that the prosecution had not proven that the defendant had either operated his vehicle on the occasion in question nor did it prove that the defendant intended to operate his vehicle.

Frank H. – November 20 – The defendant was charged with failing to comply with a court order by contacting and visiting his girlfriend while under bail conditions not to do so.  The Crown Attorney was initially seeking a jail sentence but, after a period of negotiation, an agreement was reached where the criminal charge was withdrawn after the defendant agreed to enter into a peace bond.

Calvin H. – November 20 – The client was charged with Domestic Assault following an incident with a girlfriend.  The Crown Attorney was initially insisting that the matter be set down for trial if the defendant was not prepared to plead guilty.   After further discussions an agreement was reached wherein, after completing a course of counselling and entering into a peace bond, the Prosecutor agreed to withdraw the criminal charge.

Quinn E. – November 19 – The defendant was charged with Assault with a Weapon. After a period of negotiation with the Crown Attorney it was agreed that a joint proposal would be presented to the court for a conditional discharge if the defendant did upfront anger management counselling. The court ultimately agreed with the joint proposal and granted a conditional discharge, thereby ending the matter with no conviction registered.

Luc P. – November 13 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. After reviewing the Charter materials filed on behalf of the defendant alleging breaches of his rights to counsel the prosecutor agreed to take a plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine as well as a 6 month driver’s licence suspension. After the completion of the plea the criminal charges were withdrawn by the prosecutor.

Vinodh A. – November 10 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the limit. In an unusual occurrence, the witnesses for the prosecution had been mistakenly subpoenaed to attend the second day of the trial, several weeks after the first date. Thus, on the first date for trial, no witnesses were available to be called by the prosecution. The prosecutor could have asked that the matter be adjourned to the second day of trial when the witnesses would be attending but he ran the risk that the trial judge would deny his request and he would have had to withdraw both charges outright. Of course, had he succeeded in his request, the defendant would have been put in a difficult situation as the evidence against him was strong and his breath readings were very high. In addition, he had caused a motor vehicle accident. In light of all this, the prosecutor and I reached a resolution. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal, Highway Traffic Act offence of careless driving. After the plea was entered the criminal charges were withdrawn.

Brian T. – November 9 – The defendant was charged with 80 and Over after a single motor vehicle collision.  After reviewing the case, it was clear that the Crown Attorney would have a problem proving time of driving.  Following the initial discussions, they took the position that they still had a reasonable prospect of conviction and the matter was set down for trial.  As the trial date approached however, the Crown Attorney ultimately came to change their view and withdrew the criminal charge rather than proceeding to trial.

Corey S. – November 9 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. The charge was dismissed after a trial. The trial judge was convinced that the defendant’s right to counsel had been infringed. He was not given the opportunity to look up a private lawyer notwithstanding several explicit requests by him to do so. The judge was further convinced that this infringement was so serious that the only appropriate remedy was to exclude the breath readings from evidence. Once this was done, there was no remaining evidence available to the prosecution to prove that the defendant drove above the legal limit of alcohol and the trial judge dismissed the charge.

Austin B. – November 2 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving by drugs and unlawful possession of drugs. Both charges were dismissed after a trial. The trial judge was convinced that there was sufficiently contradictory evidence amongst the several officers who testified as to raise a doubt about the condition of the defendant at the time of driving and thereby raise a doubt about the impaired driving charge. The judge was further convinced that the prosecution had not proven that the defendant was in possession of the drugs in question as the drugs were found in the car the defendant was driving and the defendant had a passenger. It was unclear on the evidence as to whom the drugs belonged.

Eric M. – November 2 – The defendant was charged with being in Care and Control of a Motor Vehicle while Over 80. After several rounds of negotiations with the prosecutor and providing in advance evidence that the vehicle in question was inoperable, it was agreed that the defendant would be allowed to plead guilty to Unlawful Consumption of Alcohol contrary to the Liquor Licence Act. The defendant received a fine and a 1 year period of probation during which he would not be permitted to drive between the hours of 10pm and 5am, or while he had any alcohol in his body. Upon completion of the plea the criminal charge was withdrawn.

Qalid A. – October 19 – The defendant was charged with multiple counts of theft as well as extortion.  The Crown’s identification evidence was weak and the matter was set down for trial to force the Crown to prove the charges.  As the trial date approached, the Crown Attorney reached out and eventually agreed to withdraw all of the criminal charges after a modest restitution amount was provided.

Abid A. – October 16 – The defendant was charged with 80 and Over.  The matter was set down for trial prior to the COVID pandemic as the Crown Attorney was not agreeable to resolve the matter without a plea to the criminal charge.   After trials began to have to be rescheduled due to the pandemic, discussions were re-commenced and, after emphasizing the defendant’s personal circumstances and the impact that a driving prohibition would have on his family, an agreement was reached that involved a plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving.  A fine was imposed in addition to driving restrictions short of a full licence suspension.  Upon entering the plea, the criminal charge was withdrawn by the prosecutor.

Suba T – October 6 – The defendant was charged with both Impaired Driving and Over 80.  The prosecutor had a strong case and, with no way to resolve the matter without a criminal conviction and driving prohibition, the matter was set down for trial.  Realizing the extent of the trial backlog that was going to be created in the defendant’s jurisdiction, discussions with the Crown Attorney were renewed following the onset of the COVID pandemic.  An agreement was reached that allowed the defendant to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act.  A fine was imposed in addition to a probation order with certain driving restrictions.  As it was preferable to the defendant, the Crown Attorney was also persuaded to agree to limiting driving to work purposes allowing the defendant to avoid a licence suspension or the requirement to install an ignition interlock device.  Once the plea was entered, the criminal charges of Impaired Driving and Over 80 were withdrawn by the prosecutor.

Heather T. – October 1 – The defendant was charged with Operation of a Conveyance with Excess Blood Alcohol. During conversations with the prosecutor we raised an issue with the implementation or rights to counsel as well as the possibility of a constitutional challenge to the legislation dealing with post-event drinking. After reviewing their case again the prosecutor agreed to accept a plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine along with a 6 month period of probation, which included terms that a) she not operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content above zero; and b) that she only drive for the purposes of work during the first 3 months of the order. Following the completion of the plea the criminal charge was withdrawn.

Cory V. – September 23 – The defendant was charged with Impaired, Over 80, Dangerous Driving, and Driving while Disqualified. After repeated conversations with the prosecutor, identified weaknesses combined with the pressures of Covid-19 combined to result in an agreement to resolve the matter to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine along with a 1 year period of probation requiring that the defendant a) attend counselling for alcohol issues; and b) not drive with a blood alcohol content exceeding zero. Following the plea to the traffic offence all criminal charges were withdrawn.

Stephen G. – September 4 – The defendant was chares with Over 80 following a traffic stop outside of a restaurant. During pre-trial discussion with the Crown Attorney, an issue was identified regarding a delay at the roadside and access to a lawyer following the arrest. As a result, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. Once the plea was entered, the prosecutor withdrew the Criminal Code charge of Over 80.

Qalid A. – August 31 – The defendant was charged with Robbery, Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose, Carry a Concealed Weapon and Uttering Threats. The matter was set down for trial as there were credibility issues with the main witness for the prosecution. At the trial confirmation hearing the week before trial, the prosecutor asked the court to withdraw all charges as the witness could not be located.

Angela C. – August 27 – The defendant was charged with Over 80 along with the Highway Traffic Act offence of Stunt Driving. Issues were identified relating to deficiencies in the provision of the defendant’s right to counsel as well as privacy issues during the detention at the Police Detachment. The matter was set for trial but was not able to proceed on the scheduled trial date. During subsequent negotiations with the Crown Attorney, an agreement was reached that allowed the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving rather than the Criminal Code Over 80 charge. In addition, the prosecutor agreed to reduce the Stunt Driving charge to a simple speeding ticket thereby substantially reducing the fine and avoiding additional demerit points. The plea was entered and the prosecutor asked the court to withdraw the Criminal Code charge of Over 80.

John B. – August 27 – The defendant was charged with Operating a Vehicle while Impaired by a Drug as well as Possession of a Drug (Fentanyl). During pretrial discussions with the Crown Attorney we identified issues in the way the defendant was treated while in police custody, including non-responsiveness to pain issues as well as the filming of his washroom use. As a result of these issues the Crown agreed to resolve the driving charge by way of a plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The court imposed a fine as well as a 6 month period of probation primarily restricting the defendant to driving only for the purpose of commuting to and from work. We were also successful in convincing the Crown that they had no reasonable prospect of conviction on the drug charge due to the failure of the police to seize any evidence for analysis. Based on all of the above, the prosecutor withdrew all criminal charges.

Jean-Luc K. – August 26 – The defendant was charged with Over 80 along with several provincial offences. During the pretrial stage we identified several issues with the way police implemented the defendant’s rights to counsel, including having placed the defendant on the phone with an administrative assistant instead of a lawyer for ‘legal advice’. In light of these significant constitutional issues that would have arisen at trial the Crown agreed to accept a plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The defendant was required to make a charitable donation in advance of the plea. In addition, the judge imposed a fine and a 1 year period of probation requiring the defendant to drive only vehicles with an installed ignition interlock device. Following the completion of this resolution the criminal charge (along with all other charges) were withdrawn.

Raymond M. – August 24 – The defendant was arrested and held for bail on serious charges including Attempted Murder. He was already on a bail with a surety for another outstanding charge. The Crown Attorney opposed his release and the matter proceeded to a contested bail hearing. Following the hearing, the Justice of the Peace was satisfied with the supervision plan proposed to the court and the client was released on bail to the care of his sureties while his matter remains before the court.

Davey H. – August 18 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. We identified for the Crown an unlawful seizure that took place in the form of the illegal weighing of the defendant. As a result of this constitutional issue that would have been raised at trial, the Crown agreed to accept a plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The court imposed a fine and 1 year period of probation during which the defendant was required to have a blood alcohol content of zero while driving. Upon completion of the plea the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge.

Andrew L. – August 10 – The defendant was charged with Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample. Through analysis of the disclosed evidence it became clear to the Defence that key portions of video footage from the roadside that would have captured the alleged offence had not been provided. The Crown, faced with a potentially fatal Charter application alleging lost evidence, agreed to resolve the matter to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The court imposed a fine along with a 1 year period of probation, the last 11 months of which required the use of an ignition interlock device when driving (other than during the course of employment). Following the completion of the plea the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge.

Joshua W. – August 7 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. Issues arose at trial on the basis of which the Crown Attorney agreed to allow the defendant to plead to the alternative charge under the Highway Traffic Act of Careless Driving if he completed upfront alcohol counselling. The matter was adjourned for the counselling to take place. In resolving the plea, the court imposed a fine along with a 1 year period of probation during which the defendant was required to have a blood alcohol content of zero while driving. After the plea was completed the criminal charges were withdrawn.

Estefani F. – August 7 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving. After a series of discussions with the Crown Attorney and the provision of materials establishing the good character of the defendant, an agreement was reached involving a plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving with driving restrictions limited to a requirement to have a blood alcohol level of 0 at all times while driving. The plea was entered and the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge of Impaired Driving.

Rebecca C. – August 6 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. During the pretrial process we identified for the Crown Attorney several potential issues with their case, the most significant of which was the police behaviour of funnelling the defendant towards the use of Duty Counsel. These issues in combination with the Crown Attorney’s desire to resolve files due to the pressures of the Covid-19 pandemic lead to an offer being made to enter a plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The deal was accepted and a fine was imposed along with a period of probation for 12 months requiring that the defendant drive only with a blood alcohol level of zero, and, for the first 6 months, drive only to and from employment.

Franz N. – July 28 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. Significant issues arose with the Crown’s case during trial. As a result of these issues we entered an arrangement with the Crown wherein the defendant would complete some upfront counselling and would thereafter enter a plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The matter resolved accordingly and a fine was imposed along with a 12 month period of probation requiring that the defendant not drive unless his blood alcohol content was zero. Following the conclusion of the plea all criminal charges were withdrawn.

Connor M. – July 23 – The defendant was charged with Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample into a Screening Device. At the pretrial stage we identified multiple potential Charter violations to the Crown Attorney, including unlawful delays and the failure to provide rights to counsel during an investigative detention. As a result of the potential problems they would have had proving their case the Crown Attorney agreed to take a plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The plea was entered to this alternative charge and a fine was imposed along with a period of probation for 1 year requiring that he not have alcohol in his body while driving, and, for the first 6 months, that he drive only to and from work. After the plea was completed the criminal charge was withdrawn.

Jesus C. – July 22 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. As the blood alcohol readings were just above the legal limit and arguably below given the margin of error of the instrument used to take the measurements, it was proposed to the Crown Attorney that a constitutional challenge was possible if the matter proceeded to trial. After a process of negotiation, the Crown Attorney ultimately agreed that the matter could resolve by way of a guilty plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. Once the plea was entered, the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge of Over 80.

Hossam K. – July 21 – The defendant was charged with Over 80 and Stunt Driving. As a result of the fact that he was present in Canada on a work permit, a conviction on the criminal count would have resulted in serious immigration consequences. Given these personal circumstances and the fact that the alleged readings were only marginally over the limit we were able to convince the Crown Attorney to agree to take a plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. The matter was resolved accordingly and a fine was imposed along with a 12 month period of probation with the only condition being a requirement to have a blood alcohol level of zero at all times while driving. Once the plea was complete, the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge.

Patricia J. – July 20 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. During pretrial discussions with the Crown Attorney we raised a number of problems with the Crown’s case, including constitutional issues such as a lack of grounds to take a sample of blood and the timing of searches in relation to when the defendant requested to speak to counsel. As a result of Covid-19 the Crown took a second look at this case and despite elevated blood alcohol readings agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Offence of Careless Driving. The matter was resolved, and a fine was imposed along with a 6-month licence suspension and a 12 month period of probation with the only condition being a requirement to have a blood alcohol level of zero at all times while driving. Once the plea was complete, the prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.

Thai T – July 16 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. As the blood alcohol readings were just above the legal limit (and arguably below given the margin of error of the instrument used to take the measurements), it was proposed to the Crown Attorney that a constitutional challenge was possible if the matter proceeded to trial. After a process of negotiation, the Crown Attorney ultimately agreed that the matter could resolve by way of a guilty plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. Once the plea was entered, the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge of Over 80.

Sean P. – June 25 – The defendant was charged with a number of serious charges, including possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after a warrant was executed on the house where he had been living. A conviction would likely have resulted in a significant jail sentence. After discussions with the Crown Attorney, an agreement was reached that the defendant would plead guilty to a single count of simple possession of cocaine. At the sentencing hearing, the Judge agreed to impose an absolute discharge, the most lenient sentence in the criminal code and a criminal conviction was avoided. In addition, all other charges were withdrawn at the request of the Prosecutor.

Deepak C. – June 25 – The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The matter was scheduled for trial but had to be adjourned due to the Covid-19 pandemic.  After re-entering negotiations with the prosecutor and again highlighting the multiple issues with the manner in which the police implemented the defendant’s right to counsel, they agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic offence of Careless Driving.  The matter was resolved and a fine was imposed along with a 6-month period of probation with the only condition being a requirement to have a blood alcohol level of zero at all times while driving.  Once the plea was complete, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.

Alana R. – June 23 – The defendant was charged with Over 80. Following the defendant’s release, the arresting officer continued to engage with the defendant in a concerning and problematic manner. We brought this behaviour to the prosecutor’s attention and assisted the defendant in providing a statement as part of a police disciplinary investigation. In light of the allegations raised, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Offence of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine, a 1 month driving suspension and a further period of probation requiring that she only drive for employment purposes and only if her blood alcohol was zero. Following the completion of the plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.

Suntae Y. – June 23 – The defendant was charged with Over 80.  After cross-examination of the arresting officer, it became clear to the prosecutor that he would have difficulty establishing that the officer had grounds to make the roadside screening demand.  During a break in the trial, a resolution was reached wherein the defendant would be permitted to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving.  In addition to a fine, the defendant was received a period of probation with a requirement to refrain from driving any vehicle other than one with an ignition interlock installed for a period of one year.  Following the plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.

Marie C. – June 22 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Refuse Breathalyzer. We brought to the prosecutor’s attention issues with the grounds for arrest, delay at the roadside, and the manner in which police handled the defendant’s rights to counsel. The prosecutor, in light of the issues raised, the background circumstances of the pandemic, and the advanced age of the defendant combined with her lack of a criminal record agreed to take a plea of guilty to the Highway Traffic Offence of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine and a period of probation requiring that she not drive except for certain medical purposes and once a week to do her shopping. Following the completion of the plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act, the prosecutor withdrew the Impaired and Refuse charges.

Michael T. – June 16 – The defendant was charged with being Impaired by a Drug and consequently also being in Breach of a Court Order. Both charges were dismissed after trial. After leading evidence from multiple witnesses that the drugs in question were not ingested voluntarily, the judge agreed that the prosecutor had not proven this essential component of these offences to a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Samantha H. – June 11 – The defendant was charged with Over 80 as well as several provincial offences. As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic the court was unable to proceed with the defendant’s scheduled trial date. Due to concerns with delays and the expected backlog courts will be facing upon resuming full operations, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Offence of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine and a period of probation during which she was only permitted to drive to and from employment. Following the completion of the plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act, the prosecutor withdrew all other charges, including the Over 80.

Greg P. – June 10 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. We brought to the prosecutor’s attention a problem with their case related to the way rights to counsel were handled by police. Ultimately the prosecutor agreed to resolve the matter by way of a plea to the Highway Traffic Offence of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine and a period of probation that required him not to have any alcohol in his body while driving. Following the completion of the plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act, the prosecutor withdrew the Impaired and Over 80 charges.

Kaveh M. – June 9 – The defendant was charged with Over 80.  The matter was scheduled for trial and a Charter Application was served on the prosecutor identifying issues relating to the privacy issues at the police detachment and the length of time the defendant was detained at the detachment following the provision of breath samples.  Prior to the scheduled date of the trial, the prosecutor agreed to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving.  The defendant received a fine and no further restrictions on his ability to operate a motor vehicle.  Upon the completion of the plea to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.

Laura H. – June 8 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and concerns regarding the backlog that courts were facing upon resuming full operations we were able to persuade the prosecutor to allow the defendant to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Offence of Careless Driving. The defendant received a fine and a probationary term requiring that she not have any alcohol in her body while driving. After the plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act was completed the prosecutor withdrew the Impaired and Over 80 charges.

Lelio D. – June 3 – The Defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Over 80 and Dangerous Driving.  As a Permanent Resident, he was extremely concerned about the prospect of a criminal conviction.  As part of negotiations with the prosecutor, issues were identified in relation to the manner in which police implemented the defendant’s right to counsel, as well as an issue with a significant delay in transporting the defendant to the detachment for breath testing following his arrest.  As a result, the prosecutor was persuaded to agree to a plea to only the Dangerous Driving offence, which allowed the defence to seek a conditional discharge as opposed to a criminal conviction.  At the sentencing hearing, the judge was persuaded that a conviction was not necessary and granted a conditional discharge.  Following the plea, the prosecutor withdrew the Impaired Driving and Over 80 charges.

Andrew P. – June 2 – The defendant was charged with the criminal charge of Over 80, and Stunt Driving under the Highway Traffic Act.   In the early stages of the traffic stop, the officer demanded that the defendant blow into his face.  This was followed by a delay in making a roadside screening demand.  Initially, the prosecutor was prepared to proceed to trial in spite of these issues.  After further negotiation, they were persuaded that the officer’s conduct raised enough of an issue to allow them to offer a plea to Careless Driving and the original Stunt Driving charge.  The defendant received a fine and no further restrictions on his ability to operate a motor vehicle.  Following the plea to the Highway Traffic Act offences of Careless Driving and Stunt Driving, the prosecutor withdrew the Over 80 charge.

Danuta L – May 29 – The defendant was charges with impaired driving, transportation fraud, and two counts of failing to attend court. The impaired driving charge was set for trial and, after the Crown Attorney was forced to seek multiple adjournments in order to accommodate one of their witnesses, an agreement was reached where the defendant was permitted to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving and the criminal charge of Impaired Driving was withdrawn. After demonstrating to the Crown Attorney that the Defendant had a reasonable excuse for not attending the two court appearances, all other charges were withdrawn by the prosecutor.

Harpreet S. – May 25 – The defendant was charged with assaulting a former girlfriend. He was new to Canada and had not yet started the process of applying for citizenship. A conviction for Assault would have caused significant immigration consequences with the possibility of deportation. After negotiations with the Crown Attorney, an agreement was reached that avoided any immigration issues. After completing a course of counselling and consenting to enter into a Peace Bond, the Prosecutor withdrew the Assault charge.

Amanda W. – March 16 – The defendant was charged following a RIDE stop with a number of serious offences, including possessing fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking. She was facing a potentially lengthy prison sentence and the matter had been set for trial. A Charter Application was served on the Crown Attorney identifying a number of issues with the way in which the police conducted the search of her vehicle. After reviewing the material, the Crown determined that they could not prove their case and all charges against the defendant were withdrawn.

J.E. – March 6 – the defendant, a youth, was charged with committing a Robbery. While it was a serious charge, he had no prior involvement with the police or the courts. After discussion with the Crown Attorney, an agreement was reached where the defendant was required to complete a counselling program and, upon completion, the Prosecutor withdrew the Robbery charge.

Updesh S. – February 11 – The defendant was charged with the criminal offence of Dangerous Driving and Stunt Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. After cross-examination of the Crown’s police and Civilian witnesses and the defendant’s own testimony, the Judge at trial found that she could not find that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant was acquitted of all charges.

T.L. – February 10 – The defendant, a youth, was charged with possession of cocaine. Because the possession occurred near a school, the Crown Attorney was initially reluctant to offer the defendant entry into the diversion program, which involves the criminal charge being withdrawn after successful completion. After providing the Crown with details about the defendant’s good character and willingness to attend counselling, they changed their position. The defendant successfully completed the diversion program and the charge was withdrawn.

Levi S. – February 7 – the defendant was charged with Assault with a Weapon after being caught on surveillance video threatening another individual with a screwdriver. As he was not a Canadian Citizen, he faced significant immigration consequences if convicted of the offence. In spite of the strength of the Crown’s case, an agreement was reached with the Crown Attorney that involved the charge being withdrawn if the defendant agreed to enter into a Peace Bond. Once the peace bond was entered, the prosecutor withdrew the Assault with a weapon charge and the defendant’s immigration status was not put at risk.

Kenneth J. – Jan. 14 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  Close to the trial date, it became apparent that the arresting officer would not be available for court for medical reasons.  Because of concerns the prosecutor had of how an adjournment may infringe the defendant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time, an agreement was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a period of probation where the defendant could only operate his motor vehicle for work purposes for six months after which he would be entitled to operate his motor vehicle for any purpose.  After the plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act was entered the prosecutor withdrew the Impaired and Over 80 charges.

Danuta L. – Jan. 9 – The defendant was charged with Refuse to Comply with a Drug Recognition Evaluation.  The prosecutor had to seek an adjournment of the trial dates that were set on more than one occasion. Because of concerns the prosecutor had of how the adjournments may infringe the defendant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time, an agreement was reached whereby the defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving  for a $1,000 fine and 12 month probation order whereby she could only operate her motor vehicle with no alcohol in her system and complete the Back on Track program. After the plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act was entered the prosecutor withdrew the criminal charge of Refuse to Comply with a Drug Recognition Evaluation. 

Ryan K. – Jan. 2 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving, Refuse Breathalyzer, and Dangerous Driving.  All three of these charges were dismissed after a trial.  The trial judge accepted the contention that the prosecutor had led insufficient evidence to prove that the driving on this occasion met the legal definition of “dangerous” even though there was a serious one-car collision involving the defendant.  The trial judge also accepted the argument that because of the serious injuries suffered by the defendant, it was impossible to conclude that he was impaired by alcohol on this occasion or that he wilfully refused to provide breath samples.