DUI Offences

The client was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which the passenger had to be taken to the hospital. Police on scene did not believe that C.B. was impaired but became aware that he was wanted on a traffic warrant. During transfer to the police station, officer began to smell alcohol coming from the backseat and C.B. subsequently admitted to drinking at a Flames Game. Police conducted a roadside screening test and as a result of the Fail, C.B. was arrested for impaired driving. He subsequently provided samples of breath with readings over double the legal limit.

At trial, the main issues was whether the arresting officer has lawful grounds to demand the roadside sample of breath. Police didn’t witness the accident and never asked when driving occurred. In order for a demand to be lawful, a police officer must turn their mind to whether or not the driving occurred within the preceding 3 hours. During cross-examination, Cory was able to get the arresting officer to admit that not only did he not know the time of driving, he didn’t even think about when the accident occurred.

As a result of Cory’s cross-examination, the Crown Prosecutor stayed all charges mid-trial. This was a great result that leaves C.B. with no criminal record.

A.B. was observed by police driving erratically for several minutes. When the officer attempted to pull him over, A.B. stopped the vehicle in the middle of the road. Police approached the vehicle and the entire interaction was caught on camera. From the beginning of the interaction, it was very evident that A.B. could hardly speak English, having recently moved to Canada from Ethiopia. Despite the language barrier, the police officer was of the belief that if she just talked louder, he would understand – he clearly did not. After multiple unsuccessful attempts at providing a roadside sample of breath, A.B. was arrested for refusal. The two officers on scene, who should have known they were being recorded, began to discuss how to ensure A.B, would be convicted, rather than how to make him properly understand what was occurring. The arresting officer, in an attempt to make it appear A.B. understood the breath demand, created fictitious notes indicating she read the demand multiple times and he told her that he understood. None of this occurred in the video.

Having reviewed the lengthy video and fake notes, Cory called the Crown Prosecutor and convinced him to withdraw the charges. As a result, A.B. did not have to go to trial and he was left with no criminal record.

L.C. was pulled over after an officer observed her swerving within her lane. The client admitted to consuming alcohol and subsequently provided a Fail on the Approved Screening Device. While at the roadside, L.C. told the officer she didn’t want to call a lawyer “right now” but was unsure of the process. Once they arrived at the police station, the arresting officer took L.C. to cells and asked if she wanted to call a lawyer. Body worn camera showed that L.C. was clearly scared and did not know what to do. The officer then told her that she could call a lawyer “but it won’t change anything that is going to happen.” As a result of what the officer aid, L.C. declined to call counsel and provided samples of breath over the legal limit.

Cory Wilson immediately determined that by telling L.C. that calling a lawyer won’t change anything, the arresting offer undermined her free will to call a lawyer. He convinced her not to call a lawyer by wrongfully stating that nothing would change if she called a lawyer.

After filing a Charter Notice and speaking with the Crown Prosecutor multiple times, the Crown agreed that they could not overcome the breach and withdrew the charges on the morning of the trial.

This was the best possible outcome as L.C. avoided trial despite blowing well over the legal limit.

The client was charged with refusing to provide a sample of breath after being involved in a car accident. The officer noted a strong smell of alcohol from the accused’s breath and he admitted to consuming some drinks. The officer read the roadside breath demand and it was alleged that R.K. refused to provide a sample of breath.

After reviewing the disclosure, it was clear that the officer failed to write down exactly what R.K. said in reply to the breath demand. Without being able to prove what R.K. said, the Crown would not be able to prove the case. Cory Wilson alerted the Crown to this issue and the charge was withdrawn less than a month after our client was charged.

The client was stopped as part of a Checkstop and read the Mandatory Screening Demand. The client was a middle-aged woman who does not drink or do drugs. Despite the fact the officer had no indicia of impairment, new legislation allows police to demand any driver provide a sample of breath. A.L. tried seven times to provide a suitable sample of breath but could not generate enough air. The officer repeatedly talked over her, shoved the device into her mouth and refused to allow her to stand to try to get a proper sample. Despite her protests that she was not refusing, the officer arrested her and she immediately lost her license for 90 days, which was catastrophic for her job as she relied on her vehicle.

The matter went to trial despite the obvious issues with the case. Even before cross-examining the arresting officer, Cory Wilson alerted the Crown Prosecutor to a fatal mistake that occurred during the Crown’s case. As a result, the judge dismissed the charges 30 minutes into the trial.

P.K. was pulled over for what the officer described as erratic driving. The client denied consuming alcohol but the officer indicated he could smell alcohol coming out of the vehicle. As a result, P.K. was read the roadside breath demand which he subsequently failed. He was taken back to the police station where he provided two samples of breath over the legal limit.

The only issue at trial was the credibility of the arresting officer. On its own, a driver who denies consuming alcohol but has a smell of alcohol coming from the vehicle does not provide an officer grounds to read a roadside screening demand. However, in this case, after P.K. was charged and released, the officer added into his report that he could also detected a strong smell of alcohol coming from P.K.’s breath. Fortunately, the entire interaction was captured on body worn camera. After extensively cross-examining the arresting officer about fabricating the smell of alcohol on P.K.’s breath, the prosecutor conceded the case and asked the judge to dismiss the charges.

The client was observed by police driving slowly and making lane changes without signaling. After several blocks, police turned on their lights and attempted to pull the driver over. Instead, the driver started driving faster and made a number of turns before finally stopping. Police walked to the driver’s window and immediately smelt alcohol coming from S.H.’s breath. Without further indicia, the officer arrested S.H. for impaired driving.

After receiving disclosure, Cory Wilson called the prosecutor to flag the significant breach of his client’s rights. There were no grounds to arrest S.H. and the subsequent breath samples were therefore unlawful.

The prosecutor agreed with Cory and withdrew the charges three weeks after S.H. was arrested.

Police were called after a vehicle was observed stuck in a ditch on a rural highway. Upon attending the scene, police spoke with T.V. who had a difficult time explaining how he ended up in the ditch. Police smelt alcohol on his breath and he admitted to drinking alcohol prior to driving. Police also noted that the T.V. had a difficult time walking and couldn’t stand still. As a result of this indicia, T.V. was arrested for impaired driving and subsequently blew 250, which is well over the legal limit of 80.

After reviewing the in-car video, it was evident to Cory Wilson that police had created indicia of impairment to justify the arrest. Cory approached the prosecutor and showed them the significant issues with arrest. As a result, the prosecutor withdrew the charges prior to trial.

This was a great outcome as it saved T.V. significant stress and cost of going to trial.

Police observed L.H. driving erratically down main street in Airdrie, twice hitting a curb. After pulling him over, police observed L.H. to have bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, an open beer can and difficulty getting his license from his wallet. Police arrested L.H. for impaired driving. On his way to the police station, L.H. passed out in the backseat of the police vehicle. L.H. eventually blew more than twice the legal limit.

The matter was set for trial. Cory Wilson filed a Charter Notice alleging police breached L.H. rights by unlawfully arresting him without reasonable grounds to do so. As a result of the detailed Notice, the Crown prosecutor agreed that they were unlikely to convict and the charges were withdrawn two days before trial.

This was the best outcome as a conviction would cause L.H. immigration issues.

D.L. was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08 after Calgary Transit Police found him behind the steering wheel stuck in a construction zone. Police were called to the scene and arrested D.L. for impaired driving based on very minimal indicia. Despite attempts to resolve the matter prior to trial, the Crown Prosecutor believed they had a strong case.

At trial, Cory Wilson cross-examined the arresting officer who admitted he did not find D.L. in the vehicle, did not know the time of driving and assumed he was the driver because he was talking with the transit officers upon police arrival. As a result of eliciting this evidence, the prosecutor had no option but to ask the judge to dismiss the charges as there was no evidence to convict DL.

The trial judge dismissed the charges and D.L. was left with no criminal record for this incident.