Impaired Driving Charges Withdrawn Due to Crown Disclosure Deficiencies

R v C.

Our client was charged with dangerous driving and impaired driving after a single-vehicle collision in which the vehicle struck a residential home. Police alleged that the client lost control of his vehicle and crashed into a house. As a result, the client was arrested and charged with multiple serious driving offences that carried the risk of a criminal record, driving prohibitions, and potential jail time. The matter was set down for trial.

In preparation for trial, we conducted a detailed review of the Crown’s disclosure. That review revealed significant disclosure deficiencies, including missing and incomplete materials necessary to properly assess the allegations and conduct a fair trial.

We formally raised these deficiencies with the Crown as the trial date approached and took the position that the matter could not proceed as scheduled without full and proper disclosure. The Crown ultimately agreed that the disclosure was deficient and acknowledged that the trial would have to be adjourned in order to remedy the problem. Because the delay would be attributable to the Crown, this raised serious concerns regarding the client’s right to be tried within a reasonable time.

Faced with the prospect of a Crown-caused adjournment and the resulting Charter implications, the Crown withdrew all charges against the client before trial.

The client avoided a criminal record, driving prohibitions, and all associated penalties.

Impaired Driving Charges Dismissed Mid-Trial Due to Charter Breaches

R v M.

Our client faced impaired driving charges that depended heavily on police observations and breath-test evidence. Following a detailed Charter application challenging the lawfulness of the arrest and detention, we demonstrated that police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and that the client’s right to counsel under s. 10(b) was not properly respected. After the arresting officer was cross-examined at trial and these constitutional deficiencies were exposed, the Crown withdrew the charges midway through the proceedings, and the matter was dismissed in its entirety.

Acquitted of Impaired Driving Charge, No Criminal Record for Remaining Charge

R v P.

Our client faced two serious charges: assault and impaired driving (care and control). The case proceeded to trial, where we mounted a vigorous defence on both counts.

The impaired driving allegation centred on the issue of care and control. Although our client was found inside the vehicle and was impaired, we argued that he had no intention of driving. The presiding justice agreed, finding that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that our client was in criminal care and control of the vehicle. As a result, our client was acquitted of the impaired driving charge.

With respect to the assault allegation, our client had no memory of the incident due to his level of intoxication. While the court found him guilty, we successfully persuaded the court to grant a conditional discharge, citing his lack of a prior record and the isolated nature of the offence.

Ultimately, our client walked away with no criminal record and no conviction, an excellent result in a difficult and complex case.

Impaired Driving, Refusal, and Over 80 Charges Withdrawn – Charter Notice Filed Pre-Trial

R v D.

Our client was facing three serious criminal charges stemming from a motor vehicle collision. The allegations included impaired driving, operating with a blood alcohol concentration over 80, and refusal to comply with a lawful demand—all carrying the risk of a criminal record, licence suspension, and potential jail time.

After reviewing the disclosure, we identified multiple potential breaches of our client’s constitutional rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and prepared to mount a full Charter challenge at trial.

We filed a comprehensive Charter Notice detailing serious breaches of our client’s rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search), 9 (arbitrary detention), and 10(b) (right to counsel). Among the key arguments:

The wrong breath demand was issued at the roadside, undermining the legality of the arrest and subsequent evidence collection;
The evidentiary breath samples were obtained in non-compliance with statutory requirements, rendering them constitutionally suspect;
Our client’s right to consult counsel without delay was breached when police continued to elicit evidence without facilitating access to legal advice.

We served the notice on the Crown in advance of trial and were fully prepared to litigate the constitutional issues. Once the Charter application was filed and trial preparations were complete, the Crown reassessed the file and elected to withdraw all charges, avoiding a lengthy and costly trial

This case illustrates how proactive Charter litigation can decisively shift the balance in a criminal case. Constitutional breaches—particularly those involving unlawful detention or denial of access to legal counsel—can seriously undermine the prosecution’s case. In this instance, our early intervention and focused legal strategy resulted in the complete withdrawal of charges, protecting our client’s record and restoring their peace of mind.

Full Acquittal – Impaired Driving and Over 80

R v B.

Our client was charged with two criminal offences related to impaired driving: operating a vehicle while impaired and operating with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. These charges carry the potential for a criminal record, licence suspension, steep fines, and long-term insurance consequences.

Rather than accept a plea or seek a reduced penalty, our client chose to contest the charges at trial and maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings.

We noticed that the Certificate of the Qualified Breath Technician—central to proving the over 80 charge—contained the wrong date. Although the police attempted to correct this error, they failed to properly serve the amended notice on our client as required by law. At trial, we argued that the certificate was procedurally invalid and inadmissible. The presiding Justice agreed, ruling that the Crown could not rely on the certificate as evidence of our client’s blood alcohol concentration. As a result, the over 80 charge was dismissed.

The Crown attempted to proceed on the alternative charge of impaired operation based on observations of our client’s behaviour. However, under cross-examination, the police evidence failed to support a finding of impairment beyond a reasonable doubt. The Justice found the Crown’s case lacking and acquitted our client of this charge as well.

Result: acquitted of all charges. This case highlights the critical importance of procedural compliance by police and prosecutors. Even technical errors—like incorrect dates and improper service—can have significant legal consequences, especially when they affect the fairness of trial proceedings. It also underscores that a weak evidentiary foundation will not sustain a criminal conviction, no matter how serious the allegation.