Urgent Assistance
× Home Our Services   About Us   Recent Successes Testimonials News And Videos   Contact Us 中文
Contact Our Firm

Impaired Driving Over 80 Dangerous Driving And Other Driving Related Offences

Book Your Free Consultation

The criminal justice system can be daunting, but you don’t need to go through it alone. Our Criminal lawyers are here to guide you every step of the way.

Contact Our Firm

 

IMPAIRED DRIVING OVER 80 DANGEROUS DRIVING AND OTHER DRIVING RELATED OFFENCES

Rex v. P. A. (2023)

Charge of Failure to Provide a Breath Sample stayed after a four-day trial at the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. At around 2 am in downtown Toronto, P.A. was observed driving his vehicle. It was alleged that P.A. was driving his vehicle in the opposite direction in a one-way lane. It was also alleged that P.A. was unable to locate his driver’s license, insurance, and vehicle permit for several minutes after he was pulled over. Due to this alleged behaviour, the arresting officer decided to demand a sample of P.A.’s breath into an approved screening device. P.A. was unable to provide a sample after repeated attempts. P.A. was then arrested for Failure to Provide a Sample and given a ticket for driving on the wrong side of the road. P.A. retained Yuvika Johri of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend him on the charges. After careful review of the disclosure, Yuvika Johri discovered that the arresting officer had violated P.A.’s section 10 (b) charter right- Rights to Counsel. Yuvika Johri brought an application to stay the charges and argued this case for 4 days. During the trial, Yuvika Johri cross examined the arresting officer and was able to show that the officer had not facilitated P.A.’s request to speak with counsel for over two hours. Additionally, defence was able to show a systematic problem with the police not following through their obligations of facilitating access to counsel upon request by an accused. A stay was granted against the Failure to Provide a Breath Sample charge and the HTA ticket was withdrawn. A favourable outcome was important for P.A. as he was a permanent resident, and a conviction could have meant deportation for him.

Rex v. P.L. (2023)

P.L. was charged with impaired operation and over 80, as well as possession of a scheduled substance, Newmarket courthouse. P.L. was driving in York Region when he was pulled over for speeding. The police officer observed beer cans inside the vehicle as well as an open beer can near the driver. After failing an ASD test, P.L. was taken to the police station. P.L. provided a breath sample that was over 80 milliliters of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. P.L. was searched and narcotic tablets were found on him in small amounts without a prescription. P.L. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyers. Mariya reviewed disclosure and found that police officers did not properly administer ASD device. In addition, Mariya requested P.L.’s medical history and was able to negotiate with the prosecutor that even though the drugs were not prescribed, P.L. was in medical need of the medication. P.L. entered a guilty plea to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act and all criminal charges against him were withdrawn.

R. v. C.K. (2023)

C.K. was a youth charged with Dangerous Driving out of the Newmarket courthouse. C.K. had no driver’s license. However, he borrowed his uncle’s vehicle and met with his friend at a parking lot of a community centre. While exiting the parking lot, C.K.’s vehicle collided with his friend’s vehicle and the two crashed into a bystanders’ vehicles. One bystander sustained minor injuries. Police attended and he was charged. C.K. retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners LLP. Mariya Protsenko reviewed the disclosure carefully and then conducted several pre-trials with the Crown Attorney. However, no desirable resolution was reached, and a trial was scheduled. Mariya took the position that based upon the statements provided and eyewitness evidence, it would be difficult for the Crown to establish Dangerous Driving. After having set the trial date down and preparing for trial, the Crown Attorney reached out to Mariya and asked to resume resolution discussions. Mariya was able to negotiate an outcome where the client pled guilty to a highway traffic offence of careless driving and a criminal offence of dangerous driving was withdrawn.

Rex v. N.D. (2022)

N.D. was charged with Driving a Motor vehicle while suspended contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. Initially ND attempted to deal with matter and conducted an Early Resolution Meeting. The Prosecutor refused to withdraw the charge. Grace Condello was retained to defend N.D. In her defence investigation, she was able to obtain a letter from N.D.’s psychiatrist establishing that N.D.’s licence was suspended after the doctor notified MTO. However, N.D. was not provided with any notice. Thus, the charge of Drive a Motor Vehicle under suspension was withdrawn.

Regina v. U.I. (2022)

Client found not guilty of impaired operation and ‘Over 80’. U.I. retained Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to defend him. After analysing the case, Christopher Assie noted that the Crown would likely be unable to prove that U.I. had operated or was in care and control of the vehicle when the police arrested him following a car accident. After a contested trial, the trial judge granted the defence application for a directed verdict of acquittal. In granting the application, the judge ruled that there was not enough evidence for a jury or judge that was properly instructed to convict and found U.I. not guilty of impaired operation/driving and Over 80.

Regina v. B.M. (2022)

BM was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle by a drug. He was a young member of the military when he was stopped by the military police for suspected impaired operation of a motor vehicle by having consumed marihuana. The investigating officer conducted a standardized field sobriety test on BM and concluded that his ability to drive was impaired. BM’s licence was suspended immediately for 90 days pursuant to Ministry of Transportation regulations. Three weeks after he was initially charged with his criminal charges, he was caught driving and charged under the Highway Traffic Act with driving while disqualified. BM retained Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP to defend him against both sets of charges. BM was very concerned because a criminal conviction may end of his military career. Furthermore, he lived in an area that required that he be able to drive. A careful review of the disclosure for the impaired by drug charge revealed that the investigating officer conducted the standardized field sobriety test improperly. Mr. Assie was able to demonstrate to the prosecutor the mistakes the officer did while administering the test. The prosecutor recognized that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and withdrew the criminal charges. Once the criminal charges were withdrawn, Mr. Assie approached the prosecutor who was dealing with the Highway Traffic Act prosecution and convinced her that it was not in the public interest to prosecute a young man for driving while disqualified when the reason he was disqualified was because of a charge that should never have been laid. The prosecutor agreed to withdraw the charge.

Regina v. R.D. (2021)

Client found not guilty of impaired driving and over 80 after trial. R. D. was found by police in the driver’s seat of a parked vehicle. Police charged R.D. with Impaired Driving. At the police station, R.D. blew 125 milligrams of alcohol within 100 milliliters of blood. Thereafter, police charged R.D. with Over 80. R. D. hired Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners LLP as his criminal defence lawyer. Ms. Protsenko crafted a meticulous defence for R.D. She drafted cross examination questions for the police officers, examined all the details of the case including maps, car keys and uber receipts, interviewed witnesses, prepared R.D. to testify and analyzed current law on care and control. After a two day trial in person and via zoom, R.D. was found not guilty on all the charges.

Regina v. G.C. (2021)

Criminal charges of operating a motor vehicle with more than the legal limit of alcohol in his body withdrawn when client pleads to a Highway Traffic Act violation of careless driving. G.C. hired Christopher Assie. A witness contacted 911 after finding G.C. asleep at the wheel at a stop sign. The police located the G.C. and investigated him. He was immediately arrested and taken to the police station. At the station he blew over 100 milligrams of alcohol within 100 milliliters of blood. After putting together a carefully crafted package of material, counsel was able to convince the Crown to withdraw the criminal charge and permit the client to plead to a Highway Traffic Act violation.

Regina v. D.D. (2021)

Criminal charges of operating a motor vehicle with more than the legal limit of alcohol in his body withdrawn when client pleads to a Highway Traffic Act violation of careless driving. D.D. hired Christopher Assie. The police received a call that someone suspected D.D. was impaired. The police located D.D. outside of a fast-food restaurant. He failed a roadside approved screening device and was arrested. At the station he blew over 110 milligrams of alcohol within 100 milliliters of blood. D.D. was on a work permit. A conviction for a criminal offence would have led to his deportation. After putting together a carefully crafted package of material, counsel was able to convince the Crown to withdraw the criminal charge and permit the client to plead to a Highway Traffic Act violation. As a result, D.D. was permitted to remain in Canada.

R. v. M.L. (2020)

The client was charged with Over 80 and Care and Control after having attended a night out at a bar and then subsequently arrested while in the driver’s seat of a vehicle that was parked but running. Mr. Navarrete was retained by the client. Mr. Navarrete conducted a Crown Pre-trial with the Crown’s office in Milton. After a thorough discussion with the Crown reviewing the case against the client including the strength and weaknesses of the Crown’s case, Mr. Navarrete was able to convince the Crown to agree to a resolution wherein the client would plead guilty to a careless driving charge under the Highway Traffic Act in exchange for a withdrawal of all criminal charges.

Regina v. T.N. (2020)

T.N. was charged Impaired operation and refusing to provide a breath sample. One night she was driving a vehicle with her boyfriend in the passenger seat. While turning at a stop light, she careened into a police officer sitting in his cruiser waiting for the light to change. She exhibited signs of impairment and was transported to a hospital because she was pregnant and appeared to be in medical distress. T.N. hired Christopher Assié of Neuberger & Partners LLP, criminal defence lawyers, to defend herself. Counsel spent a significant time preparing T.N. to testify in her defence. She testified that the night of the incident she had not been drinking. It was her boyfriend’s birthday and he was the one drinking. Her boyfriend, however, was an abusive and violent man. He had beat her earlier on in the day and before driving home that night they had gotten into an argument. She feared that he was going to beat her again as soon as they got home. She decided to drive towards the patrol car on purpose – not intending to strike it, but only to flag down help. Her boyfriend grabbed the wheel and jerked it when he saw that they were driving towards the officer. It was his actions that precipitated the accident. She explained that once at the hospital she was focused on the health of her unborn child. The police however had a different focus. They demanded that she provide a breath sample before the doctors would examine her. She stood her ground. She was in medical distress and did not believe that she would get proper medical treatment once she provided a breath sample. Counsel was able to demonstrate that what the police interpreted as symptoms of impairment were in fact the medical distress of a woman going through a miscarriage. She was found not guilty of all charges.

R v. J.R. (2020)

The defendant was charged with Careless driving contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. The defendant had proceeded through a railway crossing while the crossing lights were flashing and the rear end of his vehicle was struck by a train.  The accident occurred late at night.  Ms. Condello conducted research and found that the railway crossing, which was in a rural area, did not have sufficient warning for drivers approaching the crossing at night.  There was no signs to alert motorists of the crossing ahead or to reduce their speed, there were no gates with lights and there was a significant amount of bushes that would obstruct the view of an approaching train at night.  Given the conditions of the rural area, drivers may not have sufficient warning to bring their vehicle to a stop.  The disclosure indicated that just before the defendant approached the crossing, four other vehicles had crossed the railway tracks while the lights were activated.  After a discussion about a Court of Appeal civil decision regarding the standard of care owed by Railway companies to drivers, and railway crossings in rural areas at night, the charge of Careless driving was withdrawn, and the client entered a plea to the charge of fail to stop at railway crossing with a $100.00 fine. After this incident, the railway crossing now has had crossing gates with warning lights installed.

Regina v. Gray (2019)

Defendant represented by paralegal, Grace Condello. The defendant was charged with Careless Driving. A motion was brought to quash on the basis that the Information (the charging document) was not properly laid in accordance with section 21 of the Provincial Offences Act. The Justice of the Peace agreed with the defence submissions and the matter was quashed.

Regina v. Q.W. (2019)

Charge of Over 80 withdrawn after discussions with the Crown. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer.  Due to the low readings and an issue of a breach of the client’s right to counsel the charge was withdrawn and client plead guilty to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act.

Regina v. M.E. (2019)

M.E. was charged with impaired driving and over 80. He had a previous conviction for drinking and driving and was facing a mandatory 30-day jail sentence and a 3-year diving prohibition. M.E. hired Christopher Assié to defend himself against these charges. Counsel noticed that breath samples had been taken outside of the 2-hour limit. As a consequence, the Crown could not rely upon the breath certificates and would have to adduce evidence from a toxicologist. There was also a potential Charter issue regarding counsel of choice. Noticing that the Crown missed the need for a toxicologist, Mr. Assié decided not to file a Charter notice in advance of the trial so that the prosecutor would not look closely at the file and notice that they failed to enlist a toxicologist. On the day of trial, counsel pointed out that the Crown did not have a toxicologist and that the evidence of impairment was equivocal. Mr. Assié was able to convince the Crown to permit M.E. to plead to an offence of careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act. In exchange for installing an interlock device in M.E.’s car and paying a $1,000 fine, the Crown withdrew the criminal charges and M.E. was permitted to drive.

Regina v. P.S. (2019)

P.S. was charged with impaired care and control and over 80. He had a previous conviction for drinking and driving and was facing a mandatory 30-day sentence and a 3-year driving prohibition. P.S. hired Christopher Assié to defend himself. Counsel spent a significant time preparing P.S. to testify in his defence. P.S. took the stand to explain that he was at work when he received news that his cousin, her husband and their six-year old child had died in a foreign country from a house fire. Being emotionally distraught, he called his wife and told her that he was going home because he could not continue working. He arrived home and began drinking to cope with his emotional sorrow. Unfortunately, he forgot his cell phone in his car in the driveway of the home. He returned to the vehicle only to look for his cell phone. He sat in the driver’s seat to look for his phone. While in the driver’s seat, an officer came upon him and charged him with being impaired and in care and control of a motor vehicle. He was able to testify in a clear and coherent fashion and the judge found that the prosecutor had not been able to undermine his testimony. The judge acquitted P.S.

R. v. W.W. (2018)

Client charged with Impaired Driving and Refuse Breath Sample out of Minden, Ontario. Charges withdrawn! Mr. W.W. retained Mr. John Navarrete to represent him on these charges. Mr. Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and had several meetings with the Crown in Lindsay, Ontario including
a Judicial Pre-Trial to discuss various legal issues including the police officer’s failure to provide proper rights to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter. Mr. Navarrete drafted an application to exclude the evidence of Mr. W.W.’s refusal to provide a breath sample including his utterances as a consequence of violating his rights to counsel of choice. On the day of trial at the Ontario Court of Justice located in Lindsay, Ontario, and after reviewing Mr. Navarrete’s Charter application, the Assistant Crown Attorney agreed to accept a plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act and to withdraw all of the Criminal Code charges.

Regina v. D.R. (2018)

Charge of Refuse Roadside Breath Sample withdrawn.  D.R. was at his sister’s for an evening event. He got into his car and moved it 20 feet so that his wife could load the car and drive home. Police were already on scene for a noise complainant and questioned D.R. if he had been drinking.  D.R. admitting to drinking but while being administered the roadside test, he suffered a severe panic attack and fainted.  The police did not call 911 and the family of D.R. brought him into the home. Police entered the house without consent.  EMS eventually cleared D.R. but he was charged with Refuse Roadside Breath Sample.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer.  Joseph Neuberger sent D.R. to a forensic psychiatrist to determine if legitimately D.R. suffered an acute panic attack leading to his collapse.  Medical records were obtain and after the assessment and review of all disclosure the expert report concluded that D.R. indeed suffered an acute panic attack that would form a defence to the charge. Further, Joseph Neuberger alleged that the police in failing to call for medical assistance relinquished custody of D.R. and violated D.R.’s rights under section 8 of the Charter by entering the home.  After extensive discussions with the Crown Attorney, it was agreed that D.R. would plead to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act and the criminal code charge of Refuse Breath Sample would be withdrawn.

Regina v. R.R. (2018)

Criminal charge of Over 80 – operating a motor vehicle with more than the legal limit of alcohol in his body – withdrawn when client pleads to a Highway Traffic Act violation of careless driving. Client hired Christopher Assie. The client was stopped as a result of a 911 call regarding a ‘suspicious’ vehicle. The police attended and investigated the client. He failed a roadside approved screening device and was arrested. At the station he blew over the legal limit. There were a number of constitutional issues regarding the grounds the police had to stop the client and investigate him. By pointing out the legal issues that could potentially lead to the prosecutor losing the case, the prosecutor agreed to allow the client to plead to the Highway Traffic Act violation of careless driving. The Crown withdrew the charge of operating a motor vehicle with more than the legal limit. The client was permitted to continue driving.

Regina v. M.V. (2018)

Criminal charge of Over 80 – operating a motor vehicle with more than the legal limit of alcohol in his body – withdrawn when client plead to a Highway Traffic Act violation of careless driving. Client hired Christopher Assie. The client left a bar after having a few drinks. Someone called 911 as they believed the client was impaired. The police located the client and investigated him. He failed a roadside approved screening device and was arrested. At the station he blew over 110 milligrams of alcohol within 100 milliliters of blood. The client had a degenerative disease that affected his physical mobility. After putting together a carefully crafted package of material, counsel was able to convince the Crown to withdraw the criminal charge and permit the client to plead to a Highway Traffic Act violation.

Regina v. A.P. (2018)

Appeal from conviction for stunt driving granted and new trial ordered. At trial, the accused put forward a defence of necessity to justify why he was going 216 kilometers per hour on the 401. The trial judge rejected applied the wrong legal test in convicting the accused. Christopher Assie was retained to conduct the appeal. The appeal court agreed with the defence position that the trial judge had applied the wrong legal test and overturned the conviction. A new trial was ordered.

Regina v S.K. (2018)

Charges of failing to provide a breath sample dismissed at trial. Client was a Tamil immigrant who had two prior convictions for impaired operation of a motor vehicle. If convicted of the charge of failing to provide a breath sample, he would have been sentenced to a minimum of 120 days in jail. He retained criminal defence lawyer Christopher Assie. After his last two convictions (with another counsel) but before he was arrested for failing to provide a breath sample, the accused suffered a serious car accident causing a number of injuries including broken ribs, broken legs, a broken hip and a broken arm. The accused had a number of medical issues that resulted in him taking several different types of daily medications. He continued to suffer from pain that was worsened when he took deep breaths. Furthermore, the accused had a very limited understanding of the English language. The accused failed a road side screening device test and was brought to the police station. He was provided 14 opportunities to provide a suitable sample. The encounter was recorded on video. At trial, the defence was able to cast doubt on the breath technician’s assessment that the accused was not truly attempting to provide a suitable sample. The client was well prepared to testify and managed to withstand the Crown’s cross-examination. The client was acquitted and free to go.

Regina v. S.A. (2017)

Charge of Impaired by Drug dismissed and charge of Refuse Sample withdrawn at trial. S.A. was arrested after an accident and charged with impaired by alcohol. When searching the client’s car, the officer noted an odour of burnt marijuana, and contacted a DRE officer to be available at the station. While at the station S.A. registered 0 on the intoxilyzer test. The arresting officer the re-arrested S.A. for impaired by drug. The DRE officer proceeded with a drug recognition evaluation. S.A. failed. A demand was made for a sample of his saliva for testing. S.A. refused. S.A. was thus also charged with Refuse Sample. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Joseph Neuberger brought a Charter Application asserting violations of section 8 and 9 of the Charter, such that the demand for the sample to establish that there were drugs in S.A.’s body, was made one hour and 40 minutes after the initial arrest and that the demand was thus not made “as soon as practicable”. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger asserted that at a minimum the officer suspected that S.A. could have been impaired by drug as the officer found marijuana and an odour of burnt marijuana in the car. The arrest ought to have been made at the scene and the demand made at that time as well. At trial there was no evidence to establish impairment by drug, and S.A. was found not guilty of the offence. The Crown conceded the violation on the Charter Application and withdrew the Refuse charge.

Regina v. P.P. (2017)

Charges of Impaired Driving and Refuse to provide Breath Sample stayed after extensive discussions with the Crown Attorney. PP failed to provide a sample of breath while at the police station and had claimed medical related issues. Mariya Protsenko was retained as the defence lawyer. Mariya Protsenko obtained detailed medical records regarding a number of medical issues including heart and respiratory issues. Based upon the medical information provided by the defence, the charges were stayed.

Regina v. L.L. (2017)

Client found not guilty of Over 80 after a two day trial in Newmarket Ontario Court of Justice. Mr. L had been out with a friend at a Karaoke bar. Prior to leaving he and his friend consumed a certain quantity of alcohol and when he left he was stopped by police for speeding. During the roadside investigation he was given a breath test and failed. He was arrested and then charged with Over 80. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Joseph Neuberger interviewed the client and two defence witnesses. Based upon information about his drinking pattern, it appeared that at the time of driving Mr. L. could have in fact been under the legal limit and thus have a defence of “bolus drinking”. Joseph Neuberger hired a defence toxicologist and conducted a trial based upon a highly technical defence based on a drinking pattern and the science of rates of absorption and elimination of alcohol. After a two day trial, Mr. L was found not guilty of the charge. For more read the judgment click here.

Regina v. A.K. (2017)

A.K. was charged with Dangerous Driving. It was alleged that while driving back from work during the rush hour, he was trying to switch lanes on the highway but the Complainant didn’t let him in. It was further alleged that A.K. switched a lane to the one where the Complainant was driving and slammed his break in front of the Complainant. Allegedly, that forced the Complainant to drive off the road into the highway shoulder. Afterward, it was alleged that A.K. seemingly allowed the Complainant to drive out of the highway shoulder back into the traffic lane but once the Complainant approached the traffic lane, A.K sped up and the Complainant grazed A.K.’s car. The Crown Attorney was seeking to suspend A.K.s license for a year, to put A.K. on probation for 12 months and to have A.K. pay a $500 fine. Defence Counsel Mariya Protsenko held negotiations with the Crown Attorney and pointed to a number of issues that the Crown Attorney had with the case. Eventually, the Crown Attorney offered to withdraw the Dangerous Driving charge if A.K. were to plead guilty to an unsafe lane change under the Highway Traffic Act. Unlike, a Dangerous Driving charge, unsafe lane change was not a criminal offence and would not have resulted in a criminal record neither would it have resulted in the driver’s license suspension or probation. A.K. pled guilty to an unsafe lane change and the Dangerous Driving charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. Q.M. (2017)

Charge of operating a motor vehicle while Over 80 mg of alcohol in the blood system dismissed after trial due to a violation of the client’s right to contact counsel of choice as guaranteed by section 10 (b) of the Charter. Q.M. when arrested asked to speak with his lawyer. Q.M. spoke English but wanted to speak with a person he had used to fight traffic tickets and who spoke Cantonese. The police officer called and left a message. However within two minutes the officer called Duty Counsel and Q.M. was put on the phone with Duty Counsel. After a short discussion with that lawyer, Q.M. was then turned over to the breath technician and provided samples of his breath resulting in the charge of Over 80. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger brought an application at trial to exclude the readings based on a violation of his client’s right to speak to his counsel of choice. The Court found a violation and excluded the evidence. According Q.M. was found not guilty.

Regina v. P.O. (2016)

Client charged with Refuse to provide a roadside sample withdrawn on the day of trial. The client was driving with his wife after a dinner at a restaurant. While driving P.O. and his wife got into an argument. The wife called 911 while in the car and said that her husband, P.O., had broke her cell phone and was driving intoxicated. P.O. pulled the car over and left the car. A few minutes later OPP officers attended the scene. The client was walking back to his car when a police officer put her arm out and blocked O.P. from approaching his car and or his wife. The officer then asked questions of the client about the “domestic” dispute. While responding to the officer, P.O. allegedly was asked if he had consumed any alcohol. The police officer then demanded a roadside breath sample. P.O. had taken out his phone and was recording the interaction with the officer. The client told the officer he had only two glasses of wine two hours prior to driving and there was no basis for the officer to request a sample. The client was charged with Refuse Roadside Sample. Police seized the phone. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger demanded the forensic analysis of the phone recording. In addition Joseph Neuberger filed a Charter Application that the client was detained by the officer on the alleged domestic allegation and not afforded his section 10 (b) right to counsel and as such the demand and refuse was in breach of his rights and the evidence had to be excluded. In addition the police produced less than 30 days from trial a report that the cell phone had no recording. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger demanded the return of the phone for a defence forensic review. As a result of the potential breaches of the rights of P.O., the charge was dismissed.

R. v. A.P. (2015)

Client charged with dangerous driving after an alleged road rage incident at Yorkdale Mall during Boxing Day. Defence lawyer John Navarrete reviewed the disclosure and requested the security surveillance videos from Yorkdale. These videos demonstrated that the complainant’s allegations regarding the client’s actions were not entirely accurate or credible. After several pre-trials with the assigned Crown Attorney at 1000 Finch Ave West, the client entered into a section 810 peace bond and the charges against him were withdrawn.

Regina v. W.B. (2015)

Charge of Over 80 withdrawn at the start of trial. The client was stopped by police just as he was leaving the restaurant where he had been with friends. At the police station his readings were rising. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger interviewed two of the client’s friends and based upon the pattern of drinking, Mr. Neuberger retained an expert toxicologist to determine if there was a “Last Drink Defence” available. The expert determined that the defence was available. As such a two day trial was set. The client unfortunately contracted a serious illness prior to trial that affected his cognitive functioning and a motion was brought by Joseph Neuberger to stay the charges due to permanent medical issues. The Crown conceded the issue but a resolution was reached for the client to plead guilty to a charge of careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act and the criminal charge of Over 80 was withdrawn.

Regina v. C.H. (2015)

Charge of Over 80 withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. C.H. was stopped by police immediately after leaving Moxie’s Grill and Bar, and was arrested for Over 80. His breath test readings were 114mg and 121mg; rising. Joseph Neuberger interviewed both the client and independently his friend who was with him at the restaurant. The client had only been at the restaurant for 50 minutes and consumed a quantity of alcohol that definitely gave rise to a “Last Drink” defence. C.H. had been on his way home and his residence was a short ten minute drive from the restaurant. Joseph Neuberger retained an expert toxicologist and based upon the independent evidence a report was produced confirming the defence. Given the readings and a good driving record, the Crown agreed for C.H. to plead guilty to a charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act and the criminal charge of Over 80 was withdrawn.

Regina v. R.L. (2015)

Charge of Dangerous Driving withdrawn prior to setting trial date. Client was charged with travelling between 90 km and 270 km per hour on Yonge Street at 3:00 a.m. in the early morning hours of a Sunday. The client was chased by two police cars and some of the driving was rapid lane changes but there was limited traffic on the road. After extensive discussions between Joseph Neuberger, defence lawyer, and the Crown, with consideration of the client having completed 110 hours of community service and completed a Driver Safety course, R.L resolved for a Highway Traffic Act charge with a fine and a short suspension. The Criminal Charge of Dangerous driving was withdrawn.

Regina v. R.B. (2015)

Client charged with impaired driving and over 80 after police investigated a rear end collision. The readings were low and defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish the defence of bolus drinking. Accordingly, the Crown withdrew the two charges and the client plead guilty to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act.

R. v. D.G. (2014)

Client charged with Over 80 after being involved in an accident on the QEW where client hit another car from behind that was carrying a young infant in the back seat. On the day of trial at the Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton, the Crown agreed to resolve this matter by way of a plea to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act. Lawyer John Navarrete, in conjunction with a toxicologist hired by Neuberger & Partners LLP, was able to demonstrate to the Crown Attorney’s Office that the client was not Over 80 at the actual time of driving.

Regina v. R.M. (2014)

Client found not guilty after a three day trial of dangerous driving in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The client was alleged to have been speeding in excess of 150 km on highway 427 weaving in and out of lanes and ultimately colliding with a minivan that flipped over as a result of a collision with the client. Seven witnesses were called by the prosecution and defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger successfully cross examined each witness to negate issues of speed and erratic driving. Joseph Neuberger established through cross- examination that the driver of the minivan changed lanes into the client’s lane without signalling and actually cut off the client thereby causing the accident. Due to numerous inconsistencies the Judge found R.M. not guilty of dangerous driving

Regina v. M.S. (2013)

Charge of Over 80 withdrawn prior to setting trial date. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger obtained the technical data on the intoxilyzer that was used to take the readings and discovered anomalies in the previous testing. In addition, the readings were sufficiently low that Joseph Neuberger was able to convince the Crown that a prosecution in the circumstances was not in the public interest. The client entered a plea to a careless driving charge under the Highway Traffic Act and received a $1000.00 fine. The criminal charge of Over 80 was withdrawn.

R. v. M.V. (2013)

Charges of Impaired Driving and Over 80 stayed in the Ontario Court of Justice after lawyer Stacey Nichols successfully argued that the matter had taken too long to come to trial. Ms. Nichols argued that due to the Crown’s actions and the lengthy institutional delay at the courthouse, that client’s charges should be stayed, particularly because he had suffered prejudice as a result.

Regina v. M.R. (2013)

Client found not guilty after trial on charge of Over 80. The client had given inconsistent evidence to the arresting officer, but defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, interviewed a colleague of the client who was present on the evening and it appeared that the client and the witness both consumed 6 ounces of Overproof Rum about 10 minutes prior to leaving the nightclub and nothing else. The client was stopped within a few minutes of leaving the club. As such, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger ran a “last drink” defence and called a defence expert toxicologist to establish that at the time of driving, the client would have had a blood alcohol concentration below the legal limit although the readings at the time they were taken at the police station some hour and half later were accurate. The trial judge found the evidence raised a reasonable doubt and the client was found not guilty.

Regina v. C.G. (2013)

Client was charged with Over 80 as a result of a traffic stop by Toronto Police Services. The first trial date was missed because of late disclosure by the Crown of officer misconduct, which was demanded by Neuberger & Partners. At the second trial date Neuberger & Partners filed a Motion to stay the proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter because of delay in bringing the case to trial. The Crown conceded the Application in Court and asked to have the charge stayed.

Regina v. P.M. (2013)

Client was charged with Dangerous Driving. After persistent and extensive disclosure requests which were not met in a timely manner, lawyer Stacey Nichols successfully argued in the Ontario Court of Justice that the charge should be stayed under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to unreasonable delay in the charges coming to trial.

Regina v. G.C. (2013)

Client was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. After extensive cross-examination of the police officers and presentation of defence evidence by lawyer Stacey Nichols, client was acquitted of both charges on the basis that the Crown could not prove that he was driving at the relevant time periods

Regina v. G C. (2013)

Client was charged with Impaired Driving and Refuse Breath Sample after a traffic stop by Toronto Police on the Don Valley Parkway. At trial lawyer Neuberger & Partners argued that the client’s rights under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated because late disclosure of police evidence forced an adjournment of the first trial date. This argument was accepted by the Court and all charges were stayed.

Regina v. Y(S) 2013

Client charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80 after a single motor vehicle collision in Toronto. On the day of the trial the Crown agreed with Neuberger & Partners that the civilian identification evidence as poor and the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. L (MH) 2013

The client was charged with Dangerous Driving and Refuse Breath Sample as a result of an incident in York Region. Neuberger & Partners filed a Notice of Charter Application before a trial date was set to exclude the Breath refusal based on a violation of the client’s rights to counsel. Neuberger & Partners also provided the Crown with civilian witness statements which the York Regional Police failed to investigate, and which cast doubt on the Dangerous Driving charge. As a result, the client pleaded guilty to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act and the criminal charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. T.C. (2013) – (Impaired Driving and Over 80)

Client charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80 after a motor vehicle collision in Toronto. Neuberger & Partners convinced Crown Attorney that the case for the Crown was sufficiently weak that a Careless Driving charge was appropriate, and the client pleaded guilty to careless driving. The Impaired Driving and Over 80 charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. N. C. (2013) – (Impaired, Over 80 and Obstruct Peace Officer)

At trial, the issue was whether the Crown could prove that N.C. was the driver or in the care and control of the vehicle involved in an accident. Mr. Navarrete vigorously cross examined the various Crown witnesses including the owner of the vehicle, who alleged that N.C. was the driver. In acquitting the accused, the trial judge commented on the cross examination conducted by Mr. Navarrete and stated that the credibility of the owner of the vehicle could not meet the civil standard of proof let alone the criminal standard of proof. He also found that the owner of the vehicle possessed the type of character that he would blame his own actions on someone else. With respect to the charges of obstruct peace officer, Mr. Navarrete argued that legally N.C.’s actions did not constitute the offence as charged. Client acquitted on charges of impaired driving, Over 80 and Obstruct Peace Officer after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in Kitchener.

R. v. Y(S) 2013

The client was charged with Impaired Driving and Drive Over 80 as a result of a single motor vehicle collision on Yonge Street in Toronto. Toronto Police investigated. Neuberger & Partners applied at trial to exclude the breath readings based on a failure to provide adequate translation services for the client at the police station. At trial, Neuberger & Partners cross-examined the proposed court translator on his qualifications and the trial expertise. After this, the Crown stayed the charges.

Regina v. A(F) 2012

Client was charged with Over 80 after being stopped by the Toronto Police Service. Neuberger & Partners researched the as soon as practicable provisions regarding delay in taking the breath samples because of unnecessary calls to Duty Counsel. After speaking with the Crown on the day of trial the Crown withdrew the charge because there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. R.H. (2012)

Client found not guilty of Over 80 charge after trial. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger an evidence to the contrary defence based on the client’s drinking pattern that may have placed the client under the legal limit at the time of driving. In addition, Joseph Neuberger, alleged a Charter violation in that the Intoxilyzer 8000C is an instrument that is not readily available to the independent scientific community. After all the evidence was in, the trial judge found the R.H. was credible in his testimony and the charge was dismissed.

Regina v. M.G. (2012)

Charges of Dangerous Driving and Refuse to Provide Breath Sample withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the pattern of driving was not consistent with “dangerous driving” as set out in the relevant case law but was more closely related to the type of driving indicative of a careless driving charge under the Highway Traffic Act. Further, there were issues related to the reasonableness of the demand for the breath sample. As a result, the client plead guilty to one count of careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act and the criminal charges of Dangerous Driving and Refuse Breath Sample were withdrawn.

Regina v. D(K) 2012

Charge of Over 80 stayed at Old City Hall courthouse after Defence Counsel brings an Application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay. Judge agrees that Neuberger & Partners should have been provided breathalyzer simulator calibration checksheet 18 months before trial.

Regina v. A.P. (2012)

Client found not guilty of impaired driving and over 80 after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger advanced a section 8 application challenging the grounds for arrest and the breath samples, as well defences of evidence to the contrary and a delay application. The client was found not guilty of both charges.

R v. B. (R.) (2011)

Client is acquitted of Over 80 after Neuberger & Partners cross-examines arresting officer on his grounds for breath demand. Crown concedes that after Neuberger & Partners cross-examination there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and invited the Court to dismiss the charge.

Regina v. M.K. (2011)

Charges of Impaired Driving and Over 80 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial. The client was found at the ramp of a highway with two blown tires and damage to the side of the car. The police investigated and demanded samples of the client’s breath. The client gave readings of 106 mg and 98mg. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger sought a copy of the in-car video recording of the interaction at the roadside. The recording showed a conflict in evidence between the two officers, such that one did not notice any odour of alcohol and the second “smelled something” but was unsure whether they should make the demand under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code. As a result, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger argued that there was no reasonable suspicion to demand a breath sample and the readings ought to be excluded. The Crown agreed and the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. S.L. (2011)

Client found not guilty of Over 80, readings of 106 and 98 mgs after two day trial. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that the readings were outside of the two hour time period that would allow the Crown to rely upon the statutory presumption. As such, Joseph Neuberger ran an evidence to the contrary defence and as part of the defence, he subpoenaed the general manager of the restaurant where S.L. had dinner in order to establish the drinking pattern and that a “double” means two ounces. The court accepted the evidence of S.L. and the other defence witnesses in finding S.L. not guilty.

Regina v. E.A. (2011)

Charge of over 80 withdrawn after extensive negotiations with the Crown. The readings were 108, and 103. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish to the Crown that at the time of driving the client may have been under the legal limit and as a result the charge was withdrawn in favour of a plea to the Highway Traffic Offence of careless driving.

Regina v. M.P. (2011)

Charge of dangerous driving withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket, prior to trial. The client was charged with having driving through neighbourhood streets at speeds in excess of 60 km an hour over the speed limit along with exhibiting very aggressive and dangerous driving. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger through careful and detailed negotiations, was able to resolve the case so that the client was allowed to plead to a related Highway Traffic Act offence with the criminal charge of dangerous driving being withdrawn.

R. v. (A.) P. 2011

Client found not guilty of charges of Over 80 and Impaired Driving after a trial. Trial judge finds that, after cross-examination the by Defence Counsel, civilian witness was too unreliable. Neuberger & Partners successfully argues that Toronto Police Officer violated client’s rights under Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

R. v. P(H.) 2011

Client is acquitted of impaired Driving and Driver Over 80 charges after trial in Newmarket. Neuberger & Partners successfully argues that the client’s right to counsel of choice was violated and that breath readings should be excluded from the trial. Cross-examination by Neuberger & Partners of the arresting officer from York Regional Police Force lead the Court to comment that the officer’s reliability was too weak, and accused found not guilty.

2011 S.(S.)

Client acquitted after trial of charges of Impaired Driving and over 80 in Sudbury after Neuberger & Partners successfully argued that clients rights under s. 8 of the Charter were violated.

Regina v. R.P.M. (2011)

Charge of Over 80 withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger brought a disclosure request for extensive records of the Intoxylizer 8000C used in the taking of the breath samples. As a result of disclosure, an error had been discovered that was not previously disclosed which affected the accuracy of the readings. In addition, the defence was going to include a Constitutional challenge to the newly drafted “evidence to the contrary” defence. Consequently, the charge was withdrawn prior to trial in favour of a resolution by way of a careless driving charge under the Highway Traffic Act.

Regina v. O.F. (2011)

Charges of Over 80 and impaired driving withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to the commencement of trial. The readings were taken some 42 minutes after the arrest. There was no apparent reason justifying the delay. In addition, there were insufficient grounds for the investigating officer to make the initial arrest and demand for the breath sample. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger brought a Charter Application on behalf of the client alleging violations of sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Charter. After reviewing the defence material, the Crown agreed that there were Charter breaches and as such there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. All charges were therefore withdrawn.

Regina v. D.C. (2010)

Client acquitted of Impaired Driving an Over 80 at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Due to a delay of 47 minutes between the taking of the breath samples, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger successfully argued that the unexplained delay was sufficiently unreasonable sufficient as to deprive the Crown from relying upon the presumption of identity. As such the client was found not guilty of the Over 80. Joseph Neuberger then successfully argued that on the remainder of the evidence, the indicia of impairment was so frail and undermined by contradictory evidence of the breath technician, that the Court could not convict of impaired driving. Accordingly the client was found not guilty of the impaired driving charge as well.

R. v. A.(M) – 2010

After trial in Hamilton Neuberger & Partners obtains acquittal for client on charge of Dangerous Driving

R. v. R.(M) – 2010

Neuberger & Partners successfully brings Disclosure Motion under Charter of Rights and Freedoms that Crown disclosure in an Over 80 case is insufficient.

Regina v. R.N. (2010)

Charge of Over 80 withdrawn just prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The charge occurred in July of 2007. The readings were 120 mgs, and 121 mgs. A defence was brought challenging the readings based upon an “evidence to the contrary” defence. The law regarding the defence was changed in 2008. As a result, defence counsel Joseph Neuberger brought a Constitutional challenge to the new legislation. After many months, and years of litigation, the charge was withdrawn on the basis of a plea of guilty to a charge of careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act.

Regina v. A.M. (2010)

Charges of Impaired Driving, Over 80 and G2 Licence violation with alcohol over zero, all withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was charged as having the care and control of his motor vehicle in spite of the fact that when the investigating police officer arrived a friend of the client was in the driver’s seat with the key in the ignition. After careful review by defence counsel Joseph Neuberger of the in-car video, the defence was able to establish that the officer lacked sufficient grounds to arrest A.M., and in fact lacked any time of driving for which A.M. could have been alleged to have had care and control. Further, there was sufficient evidence to establish that the person in the driver’s seat was the one in care and control. As such, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. P.R. (2010)

Charges of impaired driving, Over 80 and possession of marijuana, all withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. The client was charged with operating while impaired by alcohol and possession as he was found to possess remnants of several joints. The readings were rather low, and in defence, Joseph Neuberger, defence lawyer for P.R., drafted a Constitutional Challenge to the new “evidence to the contrary” provision of the Criminal Code along with a detailed disclosure motion for extensive records of the maintenance history of the intoxilyzer breath machine used to obtain the readings from P.R. In order to avoid the Constitutional challenge, P.R. plead guilty to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act and all criminal charges were withdrawn.

R. v. O. (C.) 2010

Client had charges of Impaired Driving, Over 80, Drive Disqualified and Possession of Marijuana withdrawn after Neuberger & Partners brought Motion to compel Durham Regional Police to disclose maintenance records for Intoxilyzer 5000C breathalyser.

Regina v. A.(F.) (2010)

Client acquitted of Refuse to Provide Breath Sample after defence counsel Stacey Nichols effectively cross-examined police officers and presented expert medical evidence relating to the Accused’s inability to provide the sample due to anxiety issues.

R. v. A.B. (2010)

Client is acquitted of Drive Over 80 charge after a trial in London Ontario in which Neuberger & Partners successfully argued that the client’s rights to counsel were breached because the client reasonably believed that the police overheard his conversation with duty counsel.

Regina v. S.G. (2010)

Charge of Over 80 withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger advanced a Constitutional challenge to the “evidence to the contrary” provision of the Criminal Code, recently amended by Bill C-2, in July of 2008. A detailed Affidavit was developed by the defence along with a detailed disclosure motion. As a result of the defence challenge to the new law and the low readings, the charge was withdrawn in favour of a plea to careless driving under s. 130 of the Highway Traffic Act.

R. v. (T) K. (2010)

Neuberger & Partners obtained a ruling from Justice Caldwell at Old City Hall after he argued a disclosure motion during the course of an Impaired/Over 80 trial. The Crown was ordered to disclose Drug Recognition Expert and Standard Field Sobriety Testing training manuals for the arresting officer.
Read the decision.

R. v. (C.). B (2009)

Neuberger & Partners obtained a ruling from Justice Brown at Old City Hall after he argued a disclosure motion during an impaired/over 80 trial. Crown ordered to disclose the Drug Recognition and Standard Field Sobriety Testing manuals of an investigating officer.

R. v. (A.) N. (2009)

Neuberger & Partners obtained an acquittal for client on charges of Impaired Driving/Over 80 after a 2 day trial in Parry Sound. Trial judge held that the Parry Sound O.P.P. breached the client’s rights under s. 10(b) of the Charter because the client did not adequately understand English.

Reginav. Ferguson (2009)

Charges of Impaired Driving and Over 80 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client’s vehicle was found at the side of the road in a ditch with deep snow. The client was arrested for care and control and eventually gave readings more than twice the legal limit. The client had advised police that he was not the driver, but was charged as having care and control and no one else being around as the alleged driver. What defence counsel Joseph Neuberger discovered by careful review of the disclosure and from his client was that the police had taken 22 minutes to transport the client to the police station. The station ought to have been only a few minute drive. The police had in fact gone for dinner while leaving the client locked in the back of the police cruiser. A detailed Charter Application was filed alleging violations of the client’s section 7, 9 and 10(b) rights along with an Affidavit from the client and a map showing the distances. As a result, the Crown agreed with the defence that this was an impermissible violation of the client’s rights and as a result all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. S.D. (2009)

Charges of impaired driving and Over 80 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, after extensive review of the evidence and potential challenge by defence counsel, Joseph Neuberger, to the recent amendments altering the “evidence to the contrary” defence.

Regina. v. Cooke (2009)

Charges of “Over 80” dismissed pursuant to defence counsel Stacey Nichols cross-examining the officer with regard to discrepancies surrounding the timing of the samples.

Regina v. Mohamed (2009)

Client found not guilty after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice based upon a “bolus” drinking defence. The accused testified that he consumed whiskey 20 to 30 minutes prior to being stopped by police. The readings that were 161 mg and 153 mg were consistent with his pattern of drinking, but as explained through expert evidence, at the time the client was stopped by police, the alcohol he consumed would have only been 50% absorbed and he would have been under the legal limit at the time of driving. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger argued that this amount to “evidence to the contrary” and that the client ought to be acquitted. The evidence of all three defence witnesses were accepted and the client was found not guilty.

Regina v. Gorkhoran (2009)

Charge of Over 80 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to setting the trial date. The readings were 103, and 105. The defence was prepared advance a constitutional challenge to the new “evidence to the contrary” provision under the Criminal Code. Given the low readings, the charges were withdrawn in favour of the client pleading guilty to the Highway Traffic Offence of Careless Driving.

Regina v. Singh (2009)

Charges of Impaired Driving and Over 80 withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to the commencement of an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay of 11 months from the date when the trial was set. In addition, the defence was bringing a “last drink” defence with credible evidence that at the time the client was stopped by police, the blood alcohol concentration was under the legal limit.

Regina v. A.L. (2009)

Client acquitted of Impaired Driving and Drive Over 80 charges in Burlington after trial in which Neuberger & Partners successfully cross-examined on time of driving, and indicators of impairment.

Regina v. H.B. (2009)

Stunt Driving charges are thrown out after Neuberger & Partners successfully challenges charging document.

Regina v. R.S. (2009)

Client found not guilty of Over 80 charge after trial in Newmarket, Ontario. Neuberger & Partners successfully cross-examines witnesses on timing of accident.

Regina v. W.G. (2009)

Charge of Over 80 withdrawn prior to trial due to the low readings and very serious issue of breach of client’s section 8 right to be free from unreasonable search. There were insufficient grounds to arrest the client. As such, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. M.S. (2009)

Charge of Over 80 withdrawn prior to trial due to the low readings and issues raised by the defence regarding a breach of the client’s right to counsel of choice and the constitutionality of the new “evidence to the contrary” provision.

Regina v. B. (2007)

Charges of Dangerous Driving causing bodily harm after serious accident on Steeles Avenue. Lawyer Neuberger & Partners successfully attacked sufficiency of Crown evidence in Court for 3 days in Newmarket Courthouse after which Crown withdrew charges.

Regina v. C.L. (2008)

Crown withdrew Charge of Over 80 at trial after lawyer Neuberger & Partners filed Application alleging Charter breaches including Right to Counsel, Unreasonable Seizure, Right to Trial in Reasonable Time.

Regina v. T.M. (2008)

Charges of Impaired Driving and Drive Over 80 withdrawn by Crown at trial after lawyer Neuberger & Partners files Application alleging Charter breaches including Rights to Counsel, Right to Full Disclosure, Right to be tried within a Reasonable Time.

Regina v. J.J. (2008)

Client was charged with Over 80. Lawyer Neuberger & Partners brought Constitutional Application alleging breach of client’s rights under s. 10(b) because of language difficulties. Crown accepted breach and stayed charge.

Regina v. W.G. (2008)

Client had charges of Impaired Driving and Drive Over 80 stayed after Neuberger & Partners brought application to stay charges alleging various Charter Breaches, including Right to Complete Disclosure, Right to be tried in a reasonable time.

Regina v. Borushynski (2008)

Client was acquitted of Charge of Dangerous Driving after 2 day trial where Neuberger & Partners successfully attacked credibility of investigating OPP officer.

Regina v. I (D) (2009)

Charges of Over 80 and Impaired Driving stayed after Neuberger & Partners successfully argues for a stay of proceedings based on a breach of the client’s right to be tried in a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

Regina v. A.L. (2009)

Charge of Over 80 with readings of 100 and 98 was withdrawn prior to trial in favour of a plea to a careless driving charge under the Highway Traffic Act. The Crown agreed to the resolution based upon the low readings, and the challenge by the defence of the new legislation on “evidence to the contrary.”

Regina v. D.V. (2009)

Charge of Over 80 withdrawn at trial on basis of constitutional challenge to the new ‘evidence to the contrary’ provision.

Regina v. Khan (2009)

Charge of Over 80 withdrawn prior to trial on the basis of defence challenge to Bill C-2 altering the ‘evidence to the contrary’ defence. Counsel Joseph Neuberger and Stacey Nichols brought comprehensive challenge to the new law that will be heard in 2009. However, on the basis of the application and the low readings in this case, the defence convinced the Crown to not proceed on the charge of Over 80.

Regina v. C.C. (2008)

Charges of Impaired and Over 80 withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to section 11(b) application brought by defence alleging unreasonable delay in bringing case to trial.

Regina v. Clarke (2008)

Client acquitted of Over 80 Care and Control after comprehensive defence accepted by Court negating evidence presented by Crown Attorney.

Regina v. Padley (2008)

Charge of Over 80 withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in response to defence challenge to Bill C-2, alleging the new evidence provision is unconstitutional.

Regina v. Bennett (2008)

Charges of refuse breath sample and impaired driving dismissed at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. After detailed and thorough cross-examination, the trial judge concluded that both officers were inconsistent and that there was a lack of evidence on the impaired driving charge. In addition, the trial judge concluded that based upon the evidence of the client and a defence witness, there was no refusal based upon erroneous advise of a friend who was a corporate lawyer. Accordingly, client found not guilty of the charges.

Regina v. Zandi (2008)

Charges of impaired driving, dangerous driving and mischief over $5,000.00 withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger took over the file from previous counsel who had been defending the case for over one year. Vigorous pressure by defence to assess the case and the evidence, combined with a defence investigation resulted in the Crown withdrawing all charges prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Regina v. L.D. (2008)

Charges of Impaired Care and Control and “Over 80” dismissed in the Ontario Court of Justice after a lengthy trial conducted by Stacey Nichols. Cross examination of civilian witnesses and police officers revealed inconsistencies in the Crown’s case, ultimately rebutting the presumption under the Criminal Code that the client was in care and control of the vehicle.

Regina v. Zavzel (2008)

Client found not guilty of Over 80 after two day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger advanced an ‘evidence to the contrary’ defence based upon the evidence of the client and an independent witness. Thorough preparation of the client and his witness resulted in the court accepting both witnesses as credible and trustworthy. The evidence of the defence expert toxicologist was accepted. As such, the charge was dismissed.

Regina v. F.C. (2008)

Charges of Dangerous Driving and Racing withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice after detailed attack on the Crown theory.

Regina v. Olenykov (2008)

Charges of Impaired Driving, Over 80, and G2 License infraction withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence Charter Application to exclude evidence conceded by the Crown resulting in the withdrawal of all charges.

Regina v. Turek (2007)

Client acquitted at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of charge of Over 80 after trial based upon finding of credible ‘evidence to the contrary’ rebutting the readings of the intoxilyzer breath machine.

Regina v. Pabla (2007)

Client found not guilty of impaired driving and Over 80 in the Ontario Court of Justice. Skillful cross-examination of the officers elicited inconsistencies in their observations of the driving of the accused. Further, evidence disclosed bolus drinking which could not be disproved by the Crown. As a result the client was acquitted of both charges.

Regina v. Moore (2007)

Charge of Over 80 stayed as Application in the Ontario Court of Justice to stay the charge due to unreasonable delay of 13.5 months successful.

Regina v. Traicheff (2007)

Client acquitted of charge of Over 80 in the Ontario Court of Justice following successful Application to exclude the intoxilyzer readings due to violation of client’s right to counsel of choice.

Regina v. Anderson (2007)

Client acquitted of charge of Over 80 after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence “evidence to the contrary” was accepted by the trial judge as both credible and reliable thus raising a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the readings of 178 and 181.

Regina v. K.(B.) (2007)

Charge of Fail to Comply dismissed by trial judge after counsel’s successful cross-examination of arresting officer showing that the elements of offence were not made out.

Regina v. G.(M.) (2007)

Charge of “Over 80” dismissed at request of Crown Attorney after counsel’s successful cross-examination of police officer regarding time of Accused’s driving. Crown agreeing pursuant to cross-examination that essential elements of the offence not established.

Regina v. J.C. (2007)

Client acquitted of Impaired Driving and Over 80 charges after trial. Client charged with Impaired Driving and Drive Over 80. After cross-examination of the arresting officer during a trial before Mr. Justice Getliffe, client was acquitted of the Impaired Driving Charges. Client was also acquitted of the Over 80 charge after a successful Charter Application to exclude the breath readings. The Ontario Provincial Police made insufficient efforts to put the accused in touch with the lawyer he asked for, and when he was later put in touch with Duty Counsel, there was insufficient privacy during the conversation. As a result there were two breaches of the accused’s rights to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.

Regina v. M.F.(2007)

charges of impaired operation and over 80 stayed in the Ontario Court of Justice upon a finding by the trial judge that the Applicant’s rights as guaranteed by s. 11(b) of the Charter were violated, because of an unreasonable delay in bringing the case to trial.

Regina v. Jurado (2007)

client found not guilty at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of charge of Refuse breath sample, after detailed cross-examination of the arresting officer about the client’s ability to understand and comprehend the demand.

Regina v. Nadarajah (2007)

client found not guilty at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice on charges of impaired driving, and Over 80 (readings of 280 and 320) after successful cross-examination of the arresting officer and the independent witness. Charter Application successful in excluding on scene statements of the client.

Regina v. G(P) (2007)

Charge over “Over 80” dismissed pursuant to counsel successfully arguing that client’s section 10(b) rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated as he was not afforded his rights to counsel.

Regina v. Ali (2007)

charges of Over 80 and impaired driving withdrawn after successful argument that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction as there was no evidence of time of driving.

Regina v. S.C. (2007)

client acquitted in the Ontario Court of Justice of a charge of Over 80 after Charter Application alleging s.10(b) rights to counsel violation was successful and the readings were excluded.

Regina v. Kaufman (2006)

charges of Over 80 and Impaired Driving withdrawn just prior to trial as a result of Charter challenge to the detention and search of the client giving rise to the breath readings.

Regina v. Lyn (2006)

charge of Over 80 withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice after Crown accepts “evidence to the contrary” as a viable defence and thereby reduced the Crown’s prospect of conviction. The Crown conceded the issue and the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. M.S. (2006)

client acquitted at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of a charge of Over 80. Cross examination of police officers established that the client appeared, at the time of the investigation, in a sober condition setting the foundation for the “evidence to the contrary” defence. Testimony of the client, the independent witness and the defence expert was accepted resulting in a finding of not guilty.

Regina v. Braimoh (2006)

Charge of Refuse Roadside Breath Test withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Regina v. Buxton (2006)

Client acquitted at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice of the charge of care and control while over 80, after the trial judge accepted the defence “evidence to the contrary”.

Regina v. Trieu Nguyen (2006)

Client acquitted after trial before the Ontario Court of Justice. Client was pulled over by police for travelling 40 km per hour as stated by police to have been at a rate of speed that was dangerously below the speed limit, thus justifying the police stopping the client and then administering the tests. Defence Application under s. 9 and 8 of the Charter for a violation of the client’s right to be free from arbitrary detention and search was successful and the readings were excluded. Client was found not guilty of the offence.

Regina v. Pena (2006)

Client found not guilty of the charge of Over 80 after trial before the Ontario Court of Justice. The officer who conducted the intoxilyzer breath test testified as to observations of the client’s impairment that were not included in his Alcohol Influence Report/notes. Detailed and vigorous cross-examination on this point resulted in the Trial Judge rejecting the evidence of the Breath Technician. In addition evidence provided by the defendant and his independent witness was accepted by the Court giving rise to “evidence to the contrary”. Accordingly, the client was found not guilty of the charge.

Regina v. Farwell (2006)

Charge of Refuse Breath Sample Approved Screening Device, s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada, withdrawn at the pre-trial stage after discussions with Crown Attorney about the frailties of the police evidence and the police refusing to allow the client to contact duty counsel on his personal cell phone.

Regina v. Squire (2006)

Client acquitted after two day trial of Refuse Breath Sample in the Ontario Court of Justice. Client was believed based upon the “last chance” doctrine.

Regina v. Cheung (2005)

Client acquitted after three day trial on a charge of Dangerous Driving causing bodily harm. Extensive cross-examination of Crown witnesses, including the accident reconstructionist, and careful defence use of our own accident specialist and detailed legal analysis resulted in the client being found not guilty of the allegation.

Regina v. Phillips (2005)

Charge of impaired driving withdrawn after Charter Application granted excluding statements of the accused together with evidence of sobriety observations made by the arresting officer.

Regina v. Ceballos (2005)

Acquitted after trial on charges of over 80 and possession of credit card reading device. Defence raised credible, reliable “evidence to the contrary” as well as an innocent explanation as to the possession of the credit card reading device. After extensive cross-examination of the police officer, witnesses, and detailed submissions, the client was found not guilty of both charges.

Regina v. Grahovac (2005)

Client acquitted after trial on charges of over 80 and impaired driving. Client was seen crossing over the middle white line and was stopped by police. After investigation client was arrested and eventually provided readings of 160 and 170. During the search of the client’s car an open beer can that was cold to the touch and was still containing beer was found. The arresting officer failed to detail in his notes the time of driving and the time of the stop. A Charter Application to exclude all statements of the accused and sobriety test results was successful. Detailed cross examination of the arresting and assisting officer on the issue of time of driving resulted in a finding of not guilty on both charges.

Regina v. Shum (2005)

Acquitted after trial on charges of over 80.

Regina v. Valderve (2005)

Not guilty after trial on charges of impaired driving and over 80.

Regina v. Dinardo (2005)

Acquitted after trial of charge of over 80. Charter Application seeking to exclude all roadside statements successful. Crown unable to prove that the accused was the driver.

Regina v. Saldanha (2005)

Charges of impaired driving and over 80 stayed after successful Charter Application alleging a breach of the client’s 11(b) Charter rights, protecting a trial within a reasonable time.

Regina v. Finn. (2005)

Client acquitted after trial of charge over 80. Defence successfully proffered “evidence to the contrary” which undermined accuracy of the intoxilyzer readings.

Regina v. De Karic. (2005)

Charge of over 80 stayed at trial due to violation of client’s Section 11(b) right to a trial within a reasonable time. Defence Charter Application successful and charge was stayed accordingly.

Regina v. Schiebel. (2004)

Charges of over 80 and impaired driving. Acquitted after trial.

Regina v. M.S. (2004)

Acquitted after trial on charges of impaired driving and over 80, subsequent to successful Charter Application for violation of client’s Section 10(b) rights.

Regina v. G.S. (2004)

Acquitted after trial on charges of impaired driving, over 80, speeding, and graduated license infraction.

Regina v. Samai (2004)

Charges of impaired driving, over 80. Acquitted after trial.

Regina v. Sahota (2004)

Acquitted after trial on charge of over 80. Defence presented “evidence to the contrary” together with expert evidence, resulting in the acquittal.

Regina v. Hannah (2004)

Acquitted after trial on charges of impaired driving, over 80.

Regina v. Alves (2004)

Acquitted after trial on charges of impaired driving, over 80.

Regina v. R.A. (2004)

Client acquitted by Judge Purvis in Collingwood on charges of Impaired Driving and Refuse Breath Sample after successful argument that Ontario Provincial Police improperly arrested client resulting in a violation of s. 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Regina v. M.C. (2004)

Charges of impaired operation and over 80. Withdrawn after successful Charter Application regarding exclusion of all statements made by the accused at the scene of the accident.

Regina v. Kopicanyova (2004)

Charges of over 80 and impaired driving. Withdrawn after Charter Application.

Regina v. H.P. (2004)

Charges of over 80 and impaired driving. Withdrawn after Charter Application regarding violations of Sections 7, 8 and 10(b) of the Charter.

Regina v. Siddhu (2003)

Charges of over 80 and impaired. Acquitted after trial.

Regina v. M.L. (2003)

Client found not guilty of charges of Over 80 and Possession of Cocaine after successful Charter Argument that Peel Regional Police should not have investigated client in parking lot of Brampton nightclub.

Regina v. J.S. (2003)

Acquitted after trial on charge of refusal to provide roadside Breathalyzer sample.

Regina v. Charlton (2003)

Acquitted after trial on charge of over 80.

Regina v. Hazell (2003)

Charge of over 80. Not guilty.

Regina v. M(M.) (2003)

Client found not guilty after trial on charges of Impaired Driving, Drive Over 80.

Regina v. Duric (2003)

Charge of Over 80 withdrawn after attack on Breathalyzer evidence.

Regina v. Grewal (2003)

Charge of Over 80 withdrawn after attack on Breathalyzer evidence.

Regina v. Formica (2002)

Charge of Over 80 withdrawn after attack on Breathalyzer evidence.

Regina v. Falconer (2002)

Charges of impaired operation and Over 80. Acquitted at trial.

Regina v. Sammut (2002)

Charge of Over 80 withdrawn after presenting evidence contrary by defence.

Regina v. Alves (2002)

Charges of Over 80 x2 client found not guilty.

Regina v. Hannah (2002)

Charges of Over 80, client acquitted at trial.

Regina v. Kershaw (2002)

Charges of Over 80, client acquitted at trial.

Regina v. F.H. (2002)

Charges of fall to comply with a disposition, possession under, withdrawn.

Regina v. D.S. (2002)

Charges of dangerous driving. Not guilty after trial.

Regina v. Jones (2001)

Client acquitted of charges of Over 80.

Regina v. A.R. (2001)

Client acquitted of Refuse Screening Device Charge after trial.

Regina v. Jones (2001)

Charge of Failing to Remain at Scene of Accident withdrawn after Defence Application alleging unreasonable delay.

Regina v. Karametch (2000) O.J. No. 3744

Conviction for Over 80 overturned and acquittal entered.

Back to Recent Successes

Neuberger & Partners successfully brings Disclosure Motion under Charter of Rights and Freedoms that Crown disclosure in an Over 80 case is insufficient.

Past results do not guarantee success in any particular case.

CONTACT INFORMATION


PHONE: (416) 364-3111
FAX: (416) 364-3271