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, despite the officer’s claim to the contrary, the second breath test was not performed on a different approved screening device.
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. A.R.
R. v. R.S.D.
Client was charged with impaired and dangerous driving after various witnesses observed the him driving erratically, ultimately colliding with a telephone pole in the middle of the day. After first responders extracted him from the vehicle and was on his way to the hospital, police formed grounds that he was impaired, took samples of his blood, and ultimately found his blood alcohol content well-exceeded the legal limit. Mr. Beckett was nevertheless able to persuade the Crown to agree to resolve the charges under the Motor Vehicle Act instead of the Criminal Code. The client was also able to avoid a driving prohibition. – NO CRIMINAL CONVICTION
R. v. K.R.
Client charged with several property and driving offences including dangerous operation and driving while prohibited. Defence counsel negotiated with Crown and laid out weaknesses in Crown’s case, including the frailties of the identification evidence against client as the driver of the vehicle. Crown ultimately stayed all charges related to driving as a result of defence counsel’s negotiations. – CHARGES DISMISSES
R. v. S.
Client charged with impaired driving, refusal to provide a breath sample, and failing to remain at the scene of the accident. Ms. Shamess brought an application to stay the proceedings based on a breach of the client’s Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time. Judge agreed delay was unreasonable and not the fault of defence, resulting a judicial stay of proceedings. – CASE DISMISSED