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
Criminal charges of operating a motor vehicle with more than the legal limit of alcohol in his body withdrawn when client pleads to a Highway Traffic Act violation of careless driving.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and that the amount recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.
