Defence

Driving Offences

What You Must Know About Drunk Driving Charges

If you have been charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle (DUI), having more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood (Over 80), failing to provide a breath sample or dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, the consequences of conviction can be severe. In addition to a minimum licence suspension and fine, the interlock ignition program and the impact on insurance rates in Ontario can make the penalty especially harsh.

Multiple convictions can result in a lifetime suspension.

Importantly, there is overwhelming pressure to plead guilty to these kinds of offences. Crowns and even many defence lawyers will immediately tell you to simply plead guilty to minimize the impact of the penalty. It is extremely important to consult with a criminal lawyer in this situation who has your interests in mind. There are defences to these charges and very often there are constitutional issues that should be assessed in order to determine what defence strategy should be used.

Even if you have been charged with an offence under the Highway Traffic Act, such as careless driving or driving with a suspended licence, it is critical to get legal advice before making a decision.

People often rely on their driver’s licence to make a living or to manage their daily lives. Following a conviction for such an offence, insurance rates can quickly become unaffordable. If you have been charged or would like more information, call for a free consultation.

Related Representative Work

R v. A.G.

Client charged with Over 80 operation of a motor vehicle pled guilty to the offence of careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act. The defence used a toxicologist to calculate the accused’s blood alcohol level and demonstrate that it was likely under the legal limit at the time of driving even though it was over the legal limit at the time of the taking of the breath tests. Due to the difficulty proving the accused was over 80 at the time of driving, the Crown agreed to the resolution that allowed my client to avoid having a criminal record.

R v. R.M.

Client’s charges of impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and breach of probation were withdrawn at the request of the Crown Attorney at Old City Hall. Due to evidence presented by the defence refuting an unreliable methodology of establishing impairment by a drug prior to trial, the Crown chose to withdraw the charges rather than proceed. The client had been previously convicted of an impaired driving offence and was also on a probation at the time. The defence also raised issues about the legality of the arrest given the unreliable methodology and the Crown withdrew the breach of probation charge as well.

R v. M.A.

Client charged with impaired driving was acquitted after a two day trial at 2201 Finch Court.

R v. D.Y.

Client was acquitted of impaired driving after a two day trial at 1000 Finch Court in Toronto. The Crown could not prove that my client was impaired at the time of a car accident occurring and that alcohol caused the accident.

R v. T.V.

Client charged with impaired driving was acquitted after a two day trial at Old City Hall. The defence argued that the evidence did not lead to a conclusion the client was impaired and the Judge was not satisfied of impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.
R v. M.H.

Client in Simcoe, Ontario was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and had a reading of 160 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. As a result of difficulties proving the case and violations of the accused’s rights advanced by the defence, the case resolved on a plea to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act, which allowed the accused to keep his driver’s licence and avoid a criminal record.

R v. J.S.

Client charged with fail to remain had charges withdrawn in Brampton court. The case against my client relied on circumstantial evidence only. As a result of difficulties with proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt and issues raised by the defence, the charge was withdrawn on the day of trial.