How do you know we will do a good job or defend you as best we can? Here are some samples of cases we've done in the courtroom. In some cases, in the hearing room. You don't have to take our word for it. See for yourself.
R. v. Z. - Young Person Alcohol Above Zero
In R. v. Z., the Defendant was charged with Young Person Alcohol above zero. Those 21 years old and under can't have any alcohol in their system. Seems like an easy charge to prove, right? Not always. Sometimes police get it wrong and mis-read a driver's license. That's what happened here.
I had to be careful though. The client was also a G2 driver. So, even if they realized they dropped the ball on the age, they could have sought an amendment to the chgarge to be G2 Driver - Alcohol above zero. Now this would be wrong to do but it could have happened. I've seen worse.
So doing this trial, I had to keep attention off the birthday and away from the license class. You'll note my cross examination was about showing a different theory. This was a fun case to try. It's also a good example of how something else is going on than what you're seeing. No one saw this acquittal coming.
R. v. M. - Staying out of Jail
I went to court somewhere out of town. Pretty sure if was Campleford, Ontario. Anyway, while I was sitting in court waiting to deal with my case, I was watching and listening to a case where on an earlier date, the Defendant plead guilty to Careless Driving. A passenger in his vehicle had died as a result of the accident. The prosecutor was asking for 90 days jail. This poor guy was basically just going to take the 90 days. He clearly didn't know how to help himself. 2 things really got me. 1. I felt like this poor guy was about to go to jail when he didn't have to. 2. The prosecutor was incorrect on his interpretation of the law. You can read the case and see what you think on who was right or not.
I couldn't watch anymore. This guy really needed some help. So I did what any decent human being would do. I stood up and offered to help him for free.
There are 2 things which I must explain to understand this case.
1. The prosecution has to prove:
- The Defendant owned or leased the vehicle
- They permitted or caused the vehicle to be driven
- on a highway
- and the vehicle had no insurance
There's more but for the sake of the story, we'll be short.
By definition, the police must pull over someone who is not the owner. If the driver was the owner, we would be discussing Owner - Operate without Insurance and not the Permit Operation offence. In addition, the police, by definition, also beleive the driver has permission from the owner because if they didn't, the driver would be facing a theft or similar charge. In the absence of a confession from the owner that they either caused or permitted the driver to be using the motor vehicle, they need the driver as a witness. They need evidence that the driver had their permission.
In this case, someone over the phone admitted to being the owner and having given permission. This leads me to 2.
2. I would have to keep the statement out. To do this, I would have to raise a doubt as to the voluntariness of the statement. As it turns out, it was over the phone so the prosecution had a hard time establishing who the person on the phone was.
By keeping the statement out, the prosecution could not establish that the owner of the vehicle had provided permission to operate the motor vehicle.
R. v. P.C. - Abuse of Process
Every now and again, the police get creative and make a boo boo. That's what happened here. It seems the police officer didn't like the deals the Municpal prosecutors were giving so he took matters into his own hands and decided to shop for a prosecutor.
I did this case with my good friend Greg Burd of Traffic Hawk. If you need defence work in the Caledon/Orangeville area, he's your guy. Yes I did embed a link to someone else's site who does the same thing I do. He's an amazing litigator and he I learned most of what I know from him. Anyway, we did this case as a team because we knew a lot was riding on it. Read on and see why.
So, P.C. (odd using it as someone's initials, PC is usually Police Constable but alas...) was accused of speeding. The police officer gave her a Part III summons as opposed to a ticket with a fine they could pay. She was forced to go to court. Now the police can do this. The issue in this case was why the officer did it. As you can read in the trial transcripts, he did it because he didn't like how the municipal prosecutor was resolving his cases. The municipal prosecutors office in that courthouse had one courtroom and limited days in it to deal with their cases and a huge volume. They did not have to space or the resources to try every case. No prosecutor's office does. So they were forced to resolve cases to properly manage their dockets. Didn't matter. The officer decided that any ticket 35 over or more would go to the province and those drivers would get a summons instead. Essentially, he prosecutor shopped. Once the charge is issued, the police officer becomes a witness. The discretion to deal with the charge is held by the prosecutor, not the police witness.
That courthouse saw a huge spike in its caseload. More than 80% of people pay fines. Mostly because they can. If you summonsed all of them to court like what happened here, you'd see a run on court resources.
Greg and I were successful in getting the police officer to admit why he did it and getting the charge stayed. The result of this was all the remaining cases which were summons when they should have been a ticket were withdrawn.
Click Here to Read R. v. P.C. - Speeding & Abuse of Process
R. v. P.S. - Fail to Remain - Keeping a Statement Out
In almost every accident case, we have a client who spoke to the police. Firstly, let me say "Always get legal advice before doing that and if you can't get advice, don't talk to the police". That said, most do and almost always our approach is to focus on getting the statement excluded. This was a Fail to Remain case where we got it excluded. Most times it is not that the statement is bad; it is that it admits driving. Especially for P.S. it was a Fail to Remain. Which means they left. No witnesses could have pointed them out. So all the prosecutor can do is try to put the statement in. See how we kept it out.
R. v. K. - Going the Distance
The case of R. v. K. Well, one of the things you want in a legal representative is someone who can go the distance. Do every trial with the Appeal in mind. We do both. Trials and Appeals. This case was a marathan trial with a prosecutor who was wrong on the law and a Justice of the Peace who blindly followed him. It was a case where I forgot I was in Ontario. Luckily, the prosecutor on Appeal saw the tragedy of the trial and conceded not only to the Appeal but to an acquittal.
Our PDF of the case begins with the Appeal. Spoiler but you should know how it ended first.