Impaired Driving, Over 80, Refusal and other Driving Offences

R. v. R.S.L. [November 8th, 2011] - Client charged with impaired driving, dangerous driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.  As a result of Charter issues raised via a Charter Notice the over 80 charged was dismissed at the request of the Crown.  Trial commenced on the impaired driving and dangerous driving allegations.  After all the evidence was heard, the trial judge dismissed all charges against the accused.

Queen v. J.G.I. [October 31st, 2011] - Client was convicted of impaired driving in Fort McMurray, Alberta.  He appealed.  On October 31st, 2011 his appeal was granted by a judge of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta.  The case was returned for a new trial and the charges were stayed by the Crown.

R. v. R.D. [April 27th, 2011] - Client charged with impaired driving and over 80.  All charges withdrawn on the date of trial. 

R. v. J.M. [January 18th, 2011] - Client charged with impaired driving, over 80 and driving without insurance.  On the date of trial he successfully avoided criminal convictions relative to all criminal allegations.

R. v. A.H. [November 12th, 2010] - Client charged with impaired driving and over 80.  As a result of Charter issues, the case was resolved without the client obtaining a criminal record.

R. v. L.S. [October 27th, 2010] - Client charged with impaired driving, over 80 and weapons offences.  As a result of a filed Charter Notice, the client successfully defended all impaired driving related charges and received a conditional discharge relative to the weapons offences.

R. v. P.M. [October 25th, 2010] - Client charged with impaired driving, theft and refusal.  This was the second allegation of impaired.  She was successfully defended the first time.  Client successfully defended all driving allegations and was granted a conditional discharge on the theft.

R. v. N.B. [October 20th, 2010] - Client was charged with refusing to supply a breath sample in Golden, British Columbia.  The client successfully defended the criminal charge after cross-examination of the Crown's primary investigator revealed numerous issues pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Criminal Code of Canada.
 
R. v. J.M. [October 12th, 2010] - Client was charged with impaired driving and over 80.  The charge was withdrawn on the day of trial due to a substantial Charter Notice submitted on the client's behalf.

R. v. N.M. [August 10th, 2010] - Client faced charges of impaired driving and over 80.  Defence counsel assessed the likelihood of the accused successfully defending the charges as remote.  The accused decided to proceed with the trial in any event.  After the entire crown case was called, substantial Charter and Criminal Code issues arose which prompted the Crown to offer a plea bargain to a non-Criminal Code offence.  The accused did not receive a criminal record.

R. v. S.R.S. [August 3rd, 2010] - Client was charged with impaired driving and driving with blood-alcohol over 80.  In 2009 he was acquitted of the over 80 charges on grounds that the trial judge excluded the certificate of analysis at trial.  Trial continued on the impaired driving charge.  The impaired driving charge was dismissed. 

R. v. A.H.K. [June 2010] (unreported, Alta. P.C.) – AHK was charged with impaired driving, over 80 and a breach of recognizance.  Trial began and after evidence from the primary witness, the Crown resolved the case by way of a guilty plea to non-Criminal Code offence and the breach.  Crown agreed to a conditional discharge relative to the breach.  Client maintained no criminal record.

R. v. T.R. [April 2010] (unreported, Alta. P.C.) – client was charged with impaired driving and refusing to supply a breath sample.  After trial, the client was acquitted of the refusal charge on grounds the police did not have reasonable grounds to make the breath demand.  He was acquitted of impaired driving because the trial judge was left with a reasonable doubt.

R. v. M.C. [April 2010] – Client was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.  On the day of trial, the Crown withdrew the charges on grounds that defence counsel raised numerous viable Charter issues, which included unreasonable delay.  The overall delay of the case from the date of charge to the date of the second trial date exceeded twenty months.

R. v. C.M. [July 6th, 2009] – Client was charged with impaired driving and over 80.  He was acquitted at trial due to a lack of police reasonable grounds to arrest.

R. v. P.S.[2009] – The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit.  He was acquitted of both charges.  Defence counsel raised charter issues pertaining to the constitutionality of evidence collected via an approved screening device.  The trial judge found that the investigating officer ought to have taken more thorough and comprehensive notes of the incident and that he was, on occasion, testifying about a different case.  The trial judge concluded that in the circumstances, the officer violated the accused’s charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure due to problems in administrating the roadside test.

R. v. P.M.W., [2008] A.J. No. 1390 (Alta. P.C.) – Client acquitted after trial of refusing/failing to supply a sample of breath at roadside on grounds that the Crown had not proven a refusal or failure beyond a reasonable doubt.  The accused only had 1 ½ minutes to decide.  The trial judge held that this was not enough time in the circumstances.

R. v. J.B. [2008] (Unreported, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench) – Client was charged with criminal negligence causing death in an incident involving a collision between a motorcycle and a pedestrian.  During the course of the trial, the Defence managed to obtain costs from the Crown as a result of non-disclosure of medical information.  After a lengthy cross-examination of the Crown’s expert witness, the Crown invited the Court to dismiss the charge of Criminal Negligence causing death, and proceeded on Criminal Negligence Causing Bodily Harm.  At the conclusion of the trial, the Justice acquitted the accused of Criminal Negligence causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, dangerous driving causing death, dangerous driving causing bodily harm.  Ultimately, the Client was convicted of dangerous driving, for which he received a fine and probation.

R. v. C.E., [2008] A.J. No. 169 (Alta. P.C.) – Client acquitted after trial of impaired care or control of a motor vehicle.  The judge concluded that the symptoms of impairment were equivocal and that the crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a risk of danger from the vehicle being set into motion.

R. v. R.L.M. [2007] (Unreported, Alberta Provincial Court) – Client acquitted of impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 milligrams in 100 milliliters of blood.  At the conclusion of trial, the Crown invited the Court to dismiss the charges as a result of insufficient evidence on the impaired driving and troubling delay related issues with respect to the over 80 charge.  

R. v. M.Q. [2007] (Unreported, Alberta Provincial Court – Fort MacMurray) – Accused acquitted of impaired care or control and over 80.  The trial judge found insufficient reasonable and probable grounds to arrest.

R. v. C.J., [2007] A.J. No. 821 (Alta. P.C.) – Client was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 milligrams in 100 milliliters of blood.  The Client presented “evidence to the contrary”, but was left in jeopardy as a result of developments in the area of evidence to contrary as decided by the Alberta Court of Appeal.  Rather than simply accepting the adverse higher court ruling, defence counsel successfully brought an application for a judicial stay of proceedings.  This application was premised upon a breach of the Client’s right to make full answer and defence.  The application was successful. 

R. v. R.L. [2006] (Unreported, Alberta Provincial Court) – Client acquitted after trial of impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 milligrams in 100 milliliters of blood.  The Judge was not persuaded that the Client’s ability to drive was impaired by alcohol beyond a reasonable doubt and excluded the Certificate of Analysis to Charter Issues arising with the use of the Roadside Screening Device.  

R. v. J.R. [2006] (Unreported, Alberta Provincial Court – Peace River) – Client acquitted of impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 milligrams in 100 milliliters of blood.  With respect to the “over 80” charge, the Client was acquitted due to an unreasonable delay in acquiring the breath sample.

R. v. C.E., [2006] A.J. No. 1363 (Alta. P.C.) – Client charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and having care or control with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams in 100 milliliters of blood.  The Defence brought a novel application to prevent the Crown from sharing the contents of a defence Charter Notice.  The application was successful.  In light of other judicial decisions flowing from this case, the Crown later brought an application to have the judge reconsider her position.  For reasons discussed in R. v. C.E., [2007] A.J. No. 486 (Alta. P.C.), the judge declined to alter her earlier decision.  The jurisprudence in this latter decision was of sufficient interest, such that Judge’s decision was published in the Canadian Rights Reporter.  In R. v. C.E., [2008] A.J. No. 169, the client was acquitted of all charges. 

Main Phone: (403) 452-8018
David G. Chow (Ext. 1)
Tonii K. Roulston (Ext. 2)
Andrea Urquhart (Ext. 3)