N.J. – April 21 – The defendant was a youth and was charged with Robbery following a dispute on school grounds.  Steps were taken at the earliest stages to correct a misunderstanding following the incident and return property to the complainant.  This gesture informed subsequent discussions with the Crown Attorney who ultimately was persuaded to withdraw the charge after the defendant completed a youth counselling program.

Jamie M. – April 16 – The defendant was charged with Over 80.  After identifying a number of flaws with the case, the Crown Attorney made an offer involving a plea to a HIghway Traffic offence.  As we were confident that the problems with the Crown’s case were overwhelming, the offer was turned down and a trial was scheduled.  A Charter Application was filed and, after review, the Crown was ultimately persuaded that they could not prove their case and the charge was withdrawn.

Archie V. – April 15 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80.  As he had two previous convictions, he was at risk of a minimum 120 day jail sentence if convicted at trial.  After a lengthy period of negotiation, the Crown Attorney agreed to ask the court to treat the charge as another first offence, allowing the sentencing Judge to impose a sentence that did not involve jail time.  The Judge ultimately agreed and the defendant was sentenced to a period of house arrest, avoiding the minimum 4 month jail sentence that would have been imposed if the court had been asked to treat it as a third offence.

Virginia S. – April 14 – The defendant was charged with Over 80 as well as a minor traffic offence. After pretrial discussions where the defence pointed out some issues regarding the provision or rights to counsel the Crown Attorney agreed to take a plea to the alternative charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. The court gave effect to the jointly proposed position of a fine and a period of probation during which the defendant would be required to use an ignition interlock device. Following the conclusion of the plea all remaining charges, including the criminal charge, were withdrawn.

E.M. – April 13 – The defendant, a young person, was facing several criminal charges arising from two separate allegations, including Robbery, Assault with a Weapon, Uttering Threats, Weapons Dangerous, Carrying a Concealed Weapon, and Failing to Comply with conditions of release. After extensive negotiations with the Crown Attorney it was agreed that these two sets of charges could be dealt with by way of diversion. The young person was required to attend upfront counselling. After successful completion of the counselling the young person entered into a common law peace bond, following which all criminal charges relating to these allegations were withdrawn.

Lindsay A. – April 13 – The defendant was charged with Break and Enter and a number of Breach of Probation charges.  After reviewing the disclosure, it became apparent that there was minimal evidence implicating the defendant in the Break and Enter offence.  During discussions with the Crown Attorney, they were persuaded that they did not have a reasonable prospect of conviction on that offence.  They also agreed to withdraw the breach charges after a period of counselling.  Ultimately, all criminal charges against the defendant were withdrawn.

Kayla G. – April 12 – The defendant was charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle with Excess Blood Alcohol (‘Over 80’). At the pretrial stage we raised an issue with the Crown Attorney regarding the lack of washroom privacy provided to the defendant. Upon further review of the file the Crown acknowledged this triable issue and agreed to take a plea to the alternative charge of Careless Driving contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant received a fine and a period of probation during which she was required to have a blood alcohol of zero while operating a motor vehicle. Following the plea to the traffic offence the criminal charge was withdrawn.

Jose L. – April 7 – The defendant was charged with Dangerous Operation of a Conveyance and Public Mischief. After some upfront negotiations with the Crown Attorney it was agreed that a plea could be entered to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act instead of the criminal charge of Dangerous Driving. It was further agreed that on the Public Mischief charge a joint position would be put forward for a conditional discharge. The court agreed with the jointly proposed outcome. The defendant received a fine only (no suspension) on the careless driving charge and was granted a conditional discharge on the Public Mischief charge, with a probationary requirement to complete 40 hours of community service. Following the resolution, the charge of Dangerous Driving was withdrawn. The defendant was able to avoid having a criminal conviction on his record.

Sharon N. – April 7 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation of a Conveyance as well as Failure to Stop at the Scene of an Accident. Due to the nature of the accident the Crown agreed that they would not be able to prove the charge of Failure to Stop. Further negotiation resulted in an agreement that, following upfront restitution for damages caused, the defendant could plead to the alternative offence of Careless Driving contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. A joint position was proposed (and accepted by the court) for a fine and a period of probation during which the defendant would be required to maintain a blood alcohol content of zero while driving. Following the completion of the plea all criminal charges were withdrawn.

Jessica R. – April 6 – The defendant was charged with Assault and Uttering threats in relation to a dispute with a prior domestic partner.   The case against the defendant was strong as the offence was captured on video.  During discussions with the Crown Attorney an agreement was reached wherein the defendant completed a number of counselling sessions and agreed to enter into a peace bond.  In exchange, the Prosecutor withdrew the criminal charges.

Romal P. – March 26 – The defendant was charged with Assault in relation to a domestic partner.  There were numerous witnesses to the offence and the defendant’s status in Canada was at risk if he were convicted.   After conveying his personal circumstances and willingness to engage in counselling, the Crown Attorney was persuaded to withdraw the criminal charge after the defendant completed the counselling and entered into a peace bond.

Mohamad E. – March 25 – The defendant was charged with a Choking offence and Uttering Threats in relation to a domestic partner.  He strenuously denied the allegations and the matter was set down for trial.  Discussions continued with the Crown Attorney and a trial was avoided when an agreement was made that involved the defendant signing a peace bond in exchange for all criminal charges being withdrawn.

Sean P. – March 23 – The defendant was charged with Assault, Uttering Threats and Intimidating a Witness.  The intimidation charge is taken every seriously by the court and there was a risk of a significant jail sentence upon conviction.  The defendant maintained his innocence and a preliminary inquiry was scheduled.  After cross-examination of the complainant revealed significant problems with the Crown’s case, the Crown agreed to withdraw all of the criminal charges after the defendant agreed to enter into a peace bond.

Angel R. – March 17 – The defendant was charged with multiple offences relating to the theft of a motor vehicle after being located in a vehicle driven by an acquaintance.  The defendant maintained his innocence and was prepared to go to trial.  Ultimately, a trial was not required as the Crown Attorney agreed that it was not in the public interest to proceed and all of the criminal charges were withdrawn.

Jude M. – March 12 – The defendant was charged with a single count of Operating a Motor Vehicle with Excess Blood Alcohol (‘Over 80’). After a Crown adjournment of the defendant’s first scheduled trial date, and not being able to proceed with the second scheduled trial date due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Crown agreed to take a plea to the alternative charge of Careless Driving contrary to the Highway Traffic Act rather than attempting to reschedule the matter for a third trial date and risk issues of delay being successfully raised. The defendant entered his plea and received a fine and probation order requiring the use of an ignition interlock device. The criminal charge was subsequently withdrawn.

Leanna J. – March 11 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation of a Conveyance as well as Operation of a Conveyance with Excess Blood Alcohol (‘Over 80’). This matter was originally scheduled for trial. After receiving the Charter materials provided by the Defence alleging several breaches of the defendant’s rights to counsel the Crown reached out and offered to withdraw the criminal charges in exchange for a plea to Careless Driving contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. Initially the Crown wanted a term requiring an ignition interlock, however after further negotiation they agreed to abandon that request. A plea was entered to the traffic offence and a sentence was imposed involving a fine and a period of probation that restricted the defendant to driving only for employment purposes for a period of time. Following the plea, all criminal charges were withdrawn.

Adrian P. – March 5 – The defendant was charged with multiple counts of Break and Enter as well as drug charges and charges of failing to comply with court orders.  The charges were serious and likely to result in a significant jail sentence upon conviction.  The offences were closely related to a drug dependency and the Crown Attorney was ultimately persuaded to allow the defendant to enter a specialized treatment program run by the Court.  Due to the defendant’s success in the program, the Crown not only agreed not to seek a jail sentence but was ultimately persuaded to enter a stay of proceedings on all of the charges.

Malick A. – March 5 – The defendant was charged with a single count of Operating a Conveyance with Excess Blood Alcohol (‘Over 80’). Give the low end readings and the Covid-19 pandemic we were able to negotiate a plea to the alternative charge of Careless Driving contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant received a fine as well as a probationary period requiring the use of an ignition interlock when driving for personal purposes. Following the completion of the plea the criminal charge was withdrawn.

Stephen S. – March 3 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation of a Conveyance as well as Operating a Conveyance with Excess Blood Alcohol (‘Over 80’). On the unique facts of this case we were able to retain the services of an expert toxicologist to show that the defendant’s blood alcohol may have been under the criminal limit at the time that he was behind the wheel. Based on this evidence the Crown Attorney agreed to take a plea to the alternative charge of Careless Driving contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. A plea was entered to the traffic offence and a fine was imposed along with a period of probation requiring the use of an ignition interlock device and counselling for alcohol as directed by the probation officer. Following the completion of the plea, all criminal charges were withdrawn.

Ben B. – February 4 – The defendant was charged with operating a conveyance with excess blood alcohol. During the pretrial discussions with the prosecutor the defence pointed out issues both with the execution of rights to counsel as well as the grounds police were relying on to make their roadside breath demand. Given these issues and the relatively low readings the prosecutor agreed that this matter could resolve by way of a guilty plea to the charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. The court agreed with the jointly proposed position on sentence and imposed a fine along with a period of probation during which the defendant would be required to have no alcohol in his body when operating a motor vehicle. Following the plea the criminal charge was withdrawn by the prosecutor.

Jason C. – February 4 – The defendant was charged with Impaired and Over 80. Though initially the matter was set down for trial, further and ongoing resolution talks with the prosecutor resulted in an agreement that the defendant would be allowed to plead guilty to the charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. Motivating this resolution in part were concerns the prosecutor had about their ability to prove that the defendant had operated or been in care and control of the vehicle. The court imposed a fine along with a period of probation during which the defendant would be required to have a blood alcohol content of zero any time that they occupied the driver’s seat of a motor vehicle. Following the plea, all criminal charges were withdrawn by the prosecutor.

Zauerbek N. – February 2 – The defendant was charged with Over 80.  Review of the disclosure revealed triable issues relating to the officer’s grounds for making an Approved Screening Device demand at the roadside and a language issue in relation to the steps taken by police to ensure the defendant was able to properly exercise his right to counsel.   Discussions were initiated with the prosecutor in order to set the matter down for trial.  During those discussions, the prosecutor agreed to a resolution that avoided a trial on the Criminal Code charge.  The defendant pled guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving and received a sentence of a fine and a probation order with a requirement that he maintain a zero blood alcohol level while driving.  The probation order also included a condition that he only operate a motor vehicle with an ignition interlock device, but the prosecutor agreed to an exception for work vehicles so that the defendant’s employment was not impacted.  Upon entering the plea, the criminal charge was withdrawn by the prosecutor.

John L. – February 1 – The defendant was charged with both Impaired Driving and Over 80. After the initial trial dates were lost due to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic the defence renewed discussions with the prosecution. Rather than rescheduling this matter for trial it was agreed that the defendant would be allowed to deal with this matter by way of a guilty plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. The joint sentencing position was further improved after an agreement that the defendant would complete some alcohol counselling upfront in advance of the plea being entered. A fine was imposed in addition to a 3 month licence suspension and a 9 month period of probation that included a term requiring a blood alcohol content of zero while driving. Once the plea was entered, the criminal charges of Impaired Driving and Over 80 were withdrawn by the prosecutor.

John R. – January 28 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit. There was an accident involved and the prosecution called the other driver to testify at trial. The other driver was not able to identify the defendant as the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident. Although the defendant admitted to being the driver to police, there were legal issues that made the admissibility of these statements questionable. During a recess, discussions were had with the prosecutor and because of the uncertainties in the case, a resolution was reached. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of careless driving. He received a brief three month suspension and a fine. Upon pleading guilty to careless driving, the judge dismissed the criminal charges.

Kunal V. – January 26 – The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving over the limit. Both charges were dismissed by the trial judge after a trial. The judge was convinced that the prosecution had not proven that the defendant had driven a vehicle on the alleged offence date. Although 2 civilian witnesses testified at trial about seeing a drunk person in a motor vehicle, neither of them could identify the defendant as the person they saw in that vehicle. There was insufficient other evidence to establish the defendant as the driver.

Julian C. – January 19 – The defendant was charged with failing to comply with a court order after it was alleged he had called his ex-girlfriend contrary to bail conditions he was subject to.  He maintained that he did not make the call and steps were taken to schedule a trial on the matter.  During those discussions, the Crown Attorney was persuaded that they would have problems establishing that it was the defendant who made the call.  In exchange for making a modest charitable donation, the Crown Attorney agreed to withdraw the charge.

Thomas D. – January 18 – The defendant was charged with Impaired Operation and Over 80.  The evidence on the impaired charge was weak and issues were identified relating to the steps taken by the police to ensure that the defendant’s right to counsel was properly provided.  Initially, the prosecutor insisted on proceeding on the criminal charges in spite of the issues with their case.  On that basis, the Defence indicated that the matter would have to proceed to trial.  Talks continued and an agreement was reached wherein the defendant could plead guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving for a fine and a condition to have a blood alcohol level of zero when driving.  After the plea was entered the prosecutor withdrew both of the criminal charges.