Client charged with Driving While Prohibited. Charge reduced to lesser and included offence of not having a driver’s license. – NO DRIVING PROHIBITION
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.E.
R. v. M.J.
Client charged with driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. Criminal charges dropped and client entered a plea to driving without due care and attention under s. 144 of the Motor Vehicle Act after negotiations with crown counsel. – NO CRIMINAL RECORD
R. v. Y.W.
Client found driving with blood alcohol level 3.5 times the legal limit. Charges of Impaired Driving and Driving Over 80 reduced to a ticket for driving without due care and attention under s. 144 of the motor vehicle Act following negotiations with crown counsel. – NOT GUILTY
R. v. L.H.
90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition overturned after the adjudicator agreed with counsel’s submissions that the ASD “FAIL” readings were unreliable because the evidence did not establish that the ASDs were properly calibrated prior to use. Driver’s license returned and vehicle storage and impound costs reimbursed.
R. v. M.R.
Client received a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition for refusing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device. 90-day IRP overturned in response to counsel’s arguments that the demand for a sample of M.R.’s breath was unlawful. Driver’s license returned and vehicle storage and impound costs reimbursed.
R. v. Z.P.
90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition overturned after the adjudicator agreed with counsel’s submissions that the ASD “FAIL” readings were unreliable due to the recent consumption of cough syrup. Driver’s license returned and vehicle storage and impound costs reimbursed.
R. v. G.J.
90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition overturned in response to counsel’s arguments that G.J. was not in care or control of his motor vehicle. Driver’s license returned and vehicle storage and impound costs reimbursed.
R. v. N.H.
Client received a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition for failing or refusing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device (“ASD”). 90-day IRP overturned after the adjudicator agreed with counsel’s arguments that the ASD demand was unlawful because the officer did not have the proper grounds to make the demand.
R. v. C.M.
90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition overturned in response to counsel’s arguments that C.M. was not a driver within the meaning of s. 215.41 of the Motor Vehicle Act due to the consumption alcohol after the time of driving. Driver’s license returned and vehicle storage and impound costs reimbursed.