Drinking and Driving
R. v. B.H.
The client had a previous record for impaired driving that was dated and was facing a mandatory jail sentence if convicted. The client had run a red light and was arrested for over 80 and impaired driving. The Crown Attorney’s office failed to provide disclosure promptly. The client’s trial was delayed unreasonably. Adam Weisberg successfully brought a motion to have the charges stayed for a delay. The accused did not receive a criminal entry on his record or have to go to jail.
R. v. T.L.
This client was stopped for racing his high-end sports utility vehicle. The police determined that T.L. was extremely intoxicated and charged him with impaired driving and over 80. Charter motions were filed with the Court and the prosecutor agreed to withdraw the criminal charges in exchange for a plea to a traffic violation.
R. v. J.L.
The accused was a college student. He was behind the wheel of his car in a fast food parking lot with some friends. The drive thru attendant had called the police believing the accused was impaired.
After consulting a toxicology expert and filing numerous Charter materials, Mr. Weisberg was able to convince the prosecutor to withdraw the criminal charges.
R. v. F.H.
Victoria Day long weekend festivities were a little out of control. The police set up a RIDE checkpoint a block away from a noisy house party. Our client tried to avoid the RIDE checkpoint. He was arrested for impaired and over 80. The charges were eventually stayed for delay.
R. v. A.C.
A.C. drove a truck for a living. A.C. was discovered asleep behind the wheel of his vehicle. The police were found to have violated the accused’s Section 8 and 10(b) Charter rights. A.C. was found not guilty by the trial judge due to the violations of his Charter rights.
R. v. J.H.
The accused was charged with driving over 80 and possession of cocaine. The police stopped J.H. because of a traffic violation. The breath results demonstrated J.H. had very high blood/alcohol readings.
A Charter application was brought attacking the grounds that the officer had due to an improperly calibrated roadside screening device. The evidence of the breath readings and the cocaine was excluded from evidence. J.H. was found not guilty.
R. v. I.J.
The designated driver had a couple of drinks at a wedding. Her readings were over the legal limit. After consulting with a toxicologist, Mr. Weisberg was able to convince the prosecutor to withdraw the criminal charges in exchange for a plea to the non-criminal highway traffic offence of careless driving.
R. v. R.B.
This client was a very large man that had been out drinking heavily with friends. He was stopped leaving a nightclub and charged with over 80. Mr. Weisberg was able to convince the Crown that due to frailties in the case that the criminal charges ought to be dropped. R.B. pled guilty to a careless charge under the Highway Traffic Act which does not result in a criminal record.
R. v. L.H.
This client owned a variety store and had problems with English. He was charged with refusing a roadside test. After a Charter motion was argued the Crown agreed to withdraw the criminal charges.
R. v. T.M.
T.M. was very intoxicated. His readings were more than twice the legal limit. There were issues with disclosing the breath room video and the charges were stayed for unreasonable delay.
R. v. A.R.
The accused faced a charge of driving over the legal limit. The roadside device was not properly calibrated, and on that basis, a Section 8 Charter breach was established.
R. v. G.Y.
G.Y. was charged with not providing a breath sample. G.Y. refused to blow into the roadside device. During cross-examination, Mr. Weisberg established the timing of the demand and sample was improper. This led to a finding of not guilty.
R. v. M.M.
M.M. made repeated failed attempts to provide a roadside breath sample. The police believed that M.M. was faking his attempts. M.M. was found not guilty as the trial Judge found the prosecution did not prove that the device was functioning or working properly.