Client was charged criminally for dangerous driving after he was observed by multiple witnesses driving erratically and with excessive speed, including into oncoming traffic, and ultimately colliding with a telephone pole. The client faced significant employment consequences if he were convicted of a criminal driving offence. Mr. Beckett persuaded the Crown to drop the client’s criminal charges and proceed under the Motor Vehicle Act instead of the Criminal Code. – NOT GUILTY
Driving Offences
At Stern Shapray, we provide legal representation across a wide range of criminal and quasi-criminal matters, from serious charges to regulatory and provincial offences.
R. v. M.H.
R. v. C.B.
Client was charged with Robbery. Ms. Somal represented client on case and made submissions to the prosecutor to consider resolving the case with Alternative Measures. Client was referred to the Alternative Measures program and successfully completed steps which resulted in a stay of proceedings. – NOT GUILTY
R. v. D.H.
Client charged with driving while Prohibited. Charge reduced to the lesser and included offence of no driver’s license. – NO DRIVING PROHIBITION
R. v. J.T.
Client charged with Driving While Prohibited. Charge reduced to lesser and included offence of not having a driver’s license. – NO DRIVING PROHIBITION
R. v. K.B.
Charges of Driving While Prohibited reduced to Driving Without a Drivers License under the Motor Vehicle Act resulting in a reduction from a minimum 12 month driving prohibition to 2 months.
R. v. M.L.
Client charged with excessive speeding. We resolved the case with a plea as a Registered Owner instead of as a driver which resulted in a significant reduction in fine and no points on driving record.
R. v. K.W.
We were successful on the challenge to this 90 Day Driving Prohibition where the client blew a fail reading on two samples taken at the roadside. Driving prohibition was revoked on the basis that there was insufficient evidence about the proper calibration of the screening devices and thus uncertainty about the validity of the test results.
R. v. E.V.
Successful challenge to 90 Day IRP in case involving an issue about the identity of the driver of the vehicle. We successfully persuaded the adjudicator that the police were mistaken about who was driving and the driving prohibition was revoked.
R. v. D.D.
90 Day driving prohibition involving allegation of refusal to provide a breath sample at the roadside. Factual challenge to the IRP with affidavits filed and medical letter resulting in driving prohibition being revoked.