DUI Offences

R.S. was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. The police officer noted minimal indicia of impairment, but R.S. admitted to consuming alcohol. After failing a roadside screening test, R.S. was arrested and taken back to the police station to provide samples of breath. At the police station, R.S. was afforded the right to counsel and left a message with a number to call back. R.S. told the officer he was waiting for his lawyer to call back. The officer then recommended R.S. call Legal Aid instead of waiting. R.S. called Legal Aid, spoke with a lawyer and then provided two samples of breath over the legal limit.

At trial, Cory argued that despite the fact R.S. spoke with a Legal Aid lawyer prior to providing samples of breath, his Charter right to counsel was violated when the officer failed to allow R.S. to wait for his lawyer to call back. There was no rush for R.S. to provide the samples of breath and the officer had an obligation to allow a reasonable period of time to wait for a return phone call.

The trial judge agreed with Cory and R.S. was found not guilty. This left R.S. with no criminal record for this incident.

This was the best possible outcome at trial.

Q.C. was charged with impaired driving, driving over 0.08, careless driving and a number of other Traffic Safety Act violations. Q.C. was involved in a car accident in which she struck another vehicle from behind. When speaking with Q.C. shortly after the incident, the other driver smelt alcohol on Q.C.’s breath and called police. When police arrived, Q.C. admitted to consuming multiple shots of alcohol just prior to driving. She had slurred speech, red bloodshot eyes, had difficulty standing and police observed open alcohol in the vehicle.

After reviewing the disclosure, Cory found significant inconsistencies between the arresting officer’s notes and his police report. These inconsistencies would potentially cast a doubt on the reliability of the officer’s evidence at trial. After lengthy resolution discussions with the Crown, all criminal charges were withdrawn and Q.C. paid a small fine for failure to provide vehicle registration, an infraction under the Traffic Safety Act. This resolution left Q.C. with no criminal record for the incident. Having the criminal charges withdrawn was the best possible outcome.

J.S. was charged with impaired care and control of a motor vehicle and care and control of a motor vehicle while his blood was over 0.08. The charges stemmed from an incident in which J.S. was found by police sleeping in the back seat of his running vehicle outside of a rural bar in the early morning hours of a freezing winter night. J.S. had previously made several calls to arrange a taxi, but could not get through. Left with no option, J.S. slept in his vehicle. J.S. admitted to being intoxicated and showed multiple signs of impairment. Police arrested J.S. and he subsequently blew over the legal limit.

At trial, J.S. testified that he had no intention of driving his vehicle. He further testified that he feared he would freeze to death if he didn’t turn on the engine to keep warm. J.S. exhibited his phone records showing that he made multiple phone calls to various taxi companies, but with no success.

The trial judge agreed with Cory that J.S. did not enter his vehicle with the intention of driving. The judge also agreed that based on the totality of the evidence, J.S. was not guilty of either offence. As a result, J.S. was left with no criminal record for this incident. This was the best possible outcome.

A.D. was charged with impaired driving, driving over 0.08 and failing to remain at the scene of an accident. The charges stemmed from an incident in which A.B. struck another vehicle at a traffic light and then quickly drove away to her house. A witness followed A.D. and reported her location to 9-1-1. When police arrived, A.D. was still seated in the driver’s seat of her vehicle parked in the alley behind her home with the engine running. A.D. admitted to consuming alcohol, had glossy eyes, extremely slurred speech and dropped her registration document when providing them to police. As a result, A.D. was placed under arrest and read a breath demand. Though A.D.’s vehicle was parked in an alley, the arresting officer decided to wait until a tow truck attended the scene before departing for the police station. A.D. subsequently blew 2.5 times over the legal limit.

Cory filed a Charter Notice alleging that the officer breached A.D.’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure by failing to take the breath samples as soon as practicable. There was no reason for the officer to remain on the scene waiting for a tow truck when there was no safety concern and/or another police unit could have been called.

One day after Cory filed a Charter Notice, the Crown withdrew all charges against A.D. This was the best outcome for the client.

Police were called to the scene of a minor car accident that occurred inside a parking lot. Upon arrival at the scene, police walked directly to J.B. who was standing on the sidewalk adjacent to the parking lot. Police questioned J.B. as to his level of sobriety and where he had been earlier in the day. At the conclusion of the brief conversation, J.B. was read a roadside breath demand. J.B. failed and was arrested for impaired driving. J.B. subsequently blew over the legal limit and was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08.

At trial, Cory cross-examined the officer as to his grounds to demand a roadside sample of breath. During cross-examination, the officer conceded he did not inquire if J.B. was the driver of the vehicle or when the driving occurred, both of which are conditions required to form the necessary grounds.

After Cory’s cross-examination, the trial judge said that there was no need for either lawyer to make an argument as it was clear the officer did not have grounds to arrest. A.B. was found not guilty.

A verdict of not guilty was the best possible outcome.

Police received a 9-1-1 call of a possible impaired driver. The offending vehicle being driven by A.B. was located by police and observed to straddle the centre dividing line for several blocks before failing to signal prior to turning. Shortly after police pulled A.B. over, she was arrested for impaired driving and subsequently blew over the legal limit.

At trial, Cory cross-examined the arresting officer on her grounds to arrest. The officer testified to a significant number of indicia that would support A.B.’s arrest. During cross-examination, Cory played the in-car video that the officer clearly didn’t know existed. After a lengthy cross-examination, the officer conceded she was mistaken about most of the indicia that she had previously testified as being present.

Cory argued that the officer breached A.B.’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The trial judge agreed with Cory and excluded the breath certificate. A.B. was found not guilty of all charges.

Being found not guilty at trial was the best possible outcome.

R.A. was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08 after police observed his vehicle swerving between two lanes, hitting the curb multiple times, speeding up and slowing down for no apparent reason and running a red light. He was pulled over and police noted an overwhelming smell of alcohol coming from his mouth, he admitted to consuming beer, had red eyes and slurred his speech. After failing a roadside screening device, he was arrested and brought to the RCMP detachment. When he arrived at the detachment, R.A. was provided the opportunity to call a lawyer. It was 2AM and R.A. was unable to reach legal counsel. He left a message with a lawyer and told the officer that he was waiting for a return phone call. The officer told R.A. that while he was waiting, he could provide the samples of breath to speed-up the process. R.A. complied and provided two samples of breath nearly three times the legal limit.

After reviewing the disclosure, it was clear to Cory that the officer breached R.A.’s right to counsel. Cory immediately contacted the Crown who agreed with Cory’s position and withdrew the charges three weeks after R.A. was arrested.

Having charges withdrawn weeks after being charged is the best possible outcome any accused person could hope for.

After a night of heavy drinking at a bar, C.R. was observed getting into a physical confrontation with his girlfriend in the parking lot of the bar. He was then seen entering his vehicle and driving away. Police were called and attended the residence listed as belonging to the registered owner of the vehicle. When police arrived, C.R. was in the driver’s seat of the vehicle parked at the bottom of the driveway. As police approached, C.R. drove into the garage and exited the vehicle. Police requested C.R. exit the garage and after a brief conversation, read him an approved screening device demand. C.R. was taken to the police vehicle where after being provided with instructions, attempted to walk away from the officer. C.R. was immediately arrested for obstruction and placed into the police vehicle. He was then provided multiple opportunities to provide a sample of breath and failed to do so. Rather than releasing C.R. with a Promise to Appear in court, the officer chose to detain C.R. in police custody for over 9 hours.

There was no justification for C.R.’s detention and Cory filed a Charter Notice alleging that C.R. was arbitrarily detained contrary to section 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. After reviewing Cory’s Charter Notice, the Crown withdrew both charges on the morning of trial.

This was the best outcome for the client.