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
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.
Charge of Over 80 withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.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 Consequently, the charge was withdrawn prior to trial in favour of a resolution by way of a careless driving charge under the Highway Traffic Act.
Charges of Over 80 and impaired driving withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice prior to the commencement of trial.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 All charges were therefore withdrawn.
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.
After trial in Hamilton Neuberger & Partners obtains acquittal for client on charge of Dangerous Driving
Neuberger & Partners successfully brings Disclosure Motion under Charter of Rights and Freedoms that Crown disclosure in an Over 80 case is insufficient.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
