Driving Offences Results

Case File: 0017-061

Charges: Impaired Driving contrary to Section 251(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and Driving with a Blood Alcohol Concentration in excess of 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood contrary to Section 251(1)(b) of the Criminal Code

Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Facts: Client was stopped by police for a minor traffic offence. Police detected an odour of liquor in client’s vehicle and on client’s breath. Client was questioned about alcohol consumption, which they denied.  No other symptoms of impairment were observed. An Approved Screening Device Demand was read to the client, who supplied a breath sample resulting in a ‘FAIL’ reading. The client was arrested, Chartered and warned. The client supplied two further breath samples at the police detachment, which were both over the legal limit. They were charged with impaired driving and driving with a Blood Alcohol Concentration over 0.08 mg%.  The matter was set for trial.  On the eve of trial, Crown produced further disclosure. Defence sought an adjournment on the basis of late disclosure, which was contested by Crown. Defence’s application for the adjournment was successful. The trial date was rescheduled for a number of months later.

Result: Due to the passage of time, the client’s s. 11 Charter rights were engaged. Defence argued that the client was entitled to an expedient trial and that his rights were breached due to extraordinary delay. Given the significance of the issue at hand, Crown and Defence reached an agreement to avoid trial. The client pled guilty to the lesser or included offence of Driving Without Due Care under s. 144 of the Motor Vehicle Act.  The client avoided a criminal record.

Case File: 0018-230

Charges: Impaired Driving contrary to Section 251(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, Driving with a Blood Alcohol Concentration in excess of 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood contrary to Section 253(1) of the Criminal Code, Mischief contrary to Section 253(1) of the Criminal Code 

Lawyer: Puneet Klar & Sarah Leamon

Facts: Client was arrested by police while inside a licensed drinking establishment, following a report of their vehicle had been involved in a hit and run incident.  Client was belligerent with police and exhibited many signs of impairment including slurred speech and poor balance issues.  They were transported to the police detachment, where they provided two samples of breath which were over the prescribed legal limit for the operation of a motor vehicle.

Result: A trial date was set and arguments around care or control and evidence to the contrary were expected to be advanced.  Negotiations with Crown ensued and ultimately a Stay of Proceedings was entered.

Case File: 0016-218

Charges: Failure to Stop at the scene of an accident contrary to Section 252(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and Dangerous Driving contrary to Section 249(3) of the Criminal Code

Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Facts: A hit and run occurred involving a pedestrian who sustained serious injuries. The matter was investigated but unsolved. A number of months later, the client turned themselves in to police. The client was Chartered and warned by police and subsequently interviewed. The client provided a full statement.  Subsequent forensic examinations corroborated their statement.  

Result: After extensive negotiations, Crown agreed to amend the charge to the lesser or included offence of Driving Without Due Care under s. 144 of the Motor Vehicle Act.  The client did not receive a criminal record.   

Case File: 0018-079

Charges: Impaired Driving contrary to Section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, Driving with a Blood Alcohol Concentration in excess of 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood contrary to Section 253(1) of the Criminal Code, and Dangerous Driving contrary to Section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Facts: The client was involved in a two-vehicle head-on collision resulting in injuries.  Police attended and detected an odour of liquor on the client’s breath.  There was an open liquor container located near the collision site.  As the client was unconscious, no breath demands could be read.  The client was transported to hospital where a blood demand was read.  Blood samples were collected and subsequently analyzed, revealing that the client had a blood alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit.  

Result:  Following negotiations with Crown, an agreement was reached wherein the client would plead guilty to the lesser or included offence of Driving Without Due Care under s. 144 of the Motor Vehicle Act.  The client did not receive a criminal record.

Case File: 0018-076

Charges: Refusal to Comply with a Breath Demand contrary to Section 254(2)(b) of the Criminal Code and Impaired Driving contrary to Section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code 

Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Facts: The client had been seen consuming alcohol in a licensed drinking establishment earlier in the evening.  The client drove home and ended up colliding with another vehicle.  They were injured and their vehicle was undriveable.  As they were close to home, the client left the scene and was later located by police in their home. The client was issued an Approved Screening Device demand, which they failed to comply with.  Police noted some indicia of impairment including flushed face, glassy eyes, slurred speech and poor coordination.  

Result: Shortly after trial commenced, Crown entered a Stay of Proceedings.  

Case File: 0018-035

Charges: Impaired Driving contrary to Section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code

Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Facts: The client had been involved in a single-vehicle motor-vehicle accident.  Police arrived, and they were located outside of their vehicle.  Indicia of impairment was noted by police, including a strong odour of liquor on the breath, slurred speech and bloodshot eyes.  No Approved Screening Device test was conducted.  A breath demand was read and the client provided two breath samples at the police detachment.  Both samples were over the legal limit.

Result: Through the course of negotiations, Crown and Defence reached a conclusion wherein the client would enter a plea under s. 144(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act.  The client was ordered to serve a driving prohibition and pay a monetary fine.  They avoided a criminal record. 

Case File: 0017-321

Charges: Impaired Driving contrary to Section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and Dangerous Driving contrary to Section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code

Lawyer: Sarah Leamon

Facts: Civilian witnesses called police to report a possible impaired driver.  The vehicle eventually crashed into a lamp post.  Police attended.  The client was identified as the driver and located outside their vehicle.  They were arrested and subsequently provided two breath samples at the police station.  Both samples were over the legal limit.  

Result: The client entered a guilty plea to Dangerous Driving.  At the sentencing hearing, Crown sought a criminal conviction.  Defence sought a conditional discharge.  The Court imposed a conditional discharge.  The client avoided a criminal record.