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.
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. G.J.
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.
R. v. J.G.
90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition overturned after the adjudicator agreed with counsel’s submissions that the ASD “FAIL” reading was unreliable. Driver’s license returned and vehicle storage and impound costs paid for by the OSMV.
R. v. L.K.
90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition overturned following adjudicator’s finding that L.K. blew a “FAIL” on the ASDs despite the fact L.K. had a blood alcohol level under the legal limit of .08. Driver’s license returned and vehicle storage and impound costs reimbursed.
R. v. A.R.
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 A.R. did not willfully fail or refuse to comply with the ASD demand.
R. v. H.G.
90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition overturned after the adjudicator agreed with counsel’s submissions that the ASD “FAIL” readings were unreliable. Counsel argued that the “FAIL” readings were unreliable because the evidence did not establish that the ASDs were properly calibrated prior to use.
R. v. A.S.
Client charged with Driving While Prohibited. After negotiations with Crown, charge reduced to lesser and included offence of failing to produce a driver’s licence. – NO DRIVING PROHIBITION
R. v. D.L.
Client received a 90-Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (“IRP”) after blowing two “FAIL” readings. IRP overturned after the adjudicator agreed with defence counsel’s arguments that the officer’s Report to Superintendent was a nullity due to changes the officer made to the Notice of Driving Prohibition after serving the notice on the client.