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Criminal charge of Over 80 – operating a motor vehicle with more than the legal limit of alcohol in his body – withdrawn when client pleads to a Highway Traffic Act violation of careless driving.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.
Criminal charge of Over 80 – operating a motor vehicle with more than the legal limit of alcohol in his body – withdrawn when client plead to a Highway Traffic Act violation of careless driving.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
