Failure Or Refusal To Provide A Breath Sample
Our client, was charged with failure or refusal to provide a breath sample under section 254(5) of the Criminal Code. The charges arose after police received a report of a potentially impaired driver matching the description of our client’s vehicle and initiated a traffic stop. Although the officer detected an odour of alcohol from the vehicle, our client denied drinking and expressed distrust toward the officers, repeatedly requesting to call his wife or speak with a lawyer. He ultimately refused to provide a breath sample, which led to his arrest.
Upon cross-examination, it was revealed that the officer’s observations were inconsistent and that some reported details, such as our client holding a glass or staggering, were inaccurate. Additionally, we highlighted that our client was cooperative but concerned about being harassed. His refusal to blow was based on a belief that he was being unfairly treated, and he requested a witness to oversee the process, which the police denied.
The court ruled that the officer had failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that our client’s refusal was unequivocal. Our client’s behaviour was not found to be defiant but rather exasperated. Further, the court noted the absence of clear evidence proving the intent required to sustain a conviction for refusing to provide a sample.
Successful Result: Charges Dismissed; No Criminal Record
Operating A Motor Vehicle Under The Influence
Our client was charged with two offences: operating a motor vehicle under the influence and creating a risk to public safety. Officers found him seated in the driver’s seat of a vehicle parked a few doors away from his home, with signs of intoxication. Although the Crown argued that Billa posed a realistic risk of driving while impaired, they relied on the presumption that anyone in the driver’s seat has care and control of the vehicle.
Upon cross-examination, we demonstrated that our client had exited the vehicle multiple times while his friend was smoking, showing he did not intend to operate the vehicle. Additionally, we highlighted several key facts: the keys were not in his possession, the car belonged to his friend, and they had no plan to drive after arriving home. Despite concerns about his intoxicated state, there was no evidence to suggest any realistic risk that our client would change his mind and drive.
Based on the evidence and our arguments, the presumption of care and control was rebutted. The judge ruled that the Crown had not met the burden of proving a realistic risk of danger. As a result, our client was found not guilty on both charges.
Successful Result: Charges Dismissed; No Criminal Record
Impaired Operation Or Care And Control Of A Motor Vehicle
Our client was charged after police responded to a single-vehicle accident late at night. When officers arrived, they found our client walking near the vehicle, which was in a ditch. The officer suspected impairment based on the odour of alcohol on our client’s breath, slurred speech, and unsteady movements. However, our client denied driving, stating that a friend had been the driver.
The defence argued that the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest our client, as there was no direct evidence of him driving or exercising care and control of the vehicle. The only connection was the key fob in our client’s possession, and no witnesses or external evidence confirmed his operation of the vehicle within three hours of the incident. The officer’s assumption that someone would have reported the car earlier was speculative and did not meet the required legal standard.
After considering the Charter application and acknowledging the arrest as unlawful, the court excluded all evidence obtained after the arrest under section 24(2) of the Charter. As a result, the Crown admitted it had no further evidence to support the charge, and the court dismissed the case.
Successful Result: Charge Dismissed; No Criminal Record
Failure To Provide A Breath Sample
Our client was charged with failing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device, contrary to section 320.15(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
On the night in question, police received a 911 call reporting an impaired driver, and the officer and his partner stopped our client’s vehicle after following it for about 4 kilometres.
While our client’s driving showed minor irregularities—crossing the center line twice and using the left signal while pulling over to the right—the officers detected no odour of alcohol or other signs of impairment. Additionally, there was no slurred speech, red eyes, or fine motor skill issues, nor was any alcohol present in the vehicle.
Despite this, the officer decided to make a breath sample demand, citing the call regarding an impaired driver, the strong odour of perfume (which he believed could mask alcohol), and the observed driving irregularities. Our client made four unsuccessful attempts to provide a suitable breath sample, but each attempt was deemed inadequate.
Our lawyers argued that the officer did not have reasonable grounds to suspect that our client had alcohol in their body, rendering the breath demand unlawful. The court agreed, noting that there was no objective basis to conclude that our client had consumed alcohol, given the absence of typical signs of impairment and the speculative nature of the officer’s reasoning.
The judge concluded that because the demand was unlawful, our client had no legal obligation to comply with it. As a result, the court found our client not guilty of the charge.
Successful Result: Not Guilty; No Criminal Record
Over 80 Operation Of A Motor Vehicle
Our client was charged with over 80 operation of a motor vehicle. An officer observed our client’s vehicle make a sudden right exit across a solid white line on the highway. Finding the maneuver risky, the officer decided to pull over the vehicle.
Upon approaching the vehicle, which had two occupants, the officer claimed to have detected the smell of alcohol. However, he did not determine whether the odour came from our client or the passenger.
The officer made a demand for a breath sample using an approved screening device (ASD), though he did not carry one at the scene. Another officer arrived with the ASD, and our client provided a breath sample, registering a fail. This led to our client’s arrest for over 80 and transportation to the station, where two more breath samples were collected using an approved instrument, both of which indicated readings over the legal limit.
At trial, we argued that the officer lacked reasonable grounds to suspect that our client had alcohol in their body at the time of the demand. The officer’s notes were inconsistent, and no effort was made to determine whether the alcohol odor came from the driver or the passenger. Furthermore, no typical signs of impairment were observed, such as slurred speech or red eyes.
The court agreed that the officer’s suspicion was not objectively reasonable. Because the breath sample was obtained unlawfully, the Charter rights of our client under sections 8 and 9 were violated. As a result, the breath test evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, leaving the Crown with no case.
Successful Result: Acquitted; No Criminal Record
Over 80 Operation Of A Motor Vehicle
Our client was charged with over 80 operation of a motor vehicle, following a traffic stop. The officer observed a vehicle, driven by our client, exit a parking lot adjacent to the club. The officer followed the vehicle and noted minor driving irregularities, including crossing the shoulder lane line twice and signalling left prematurely before merging onto the highway.
Upon stopping the vehicle, the officer noticed an odour of alcohol and directed our client to exit. Although our client denied drinking, the officer noted some lack of coordination. The officer administered an ASD test after four attempts, which registered a fail, leading to our client’s arrest and transportation to the police station for further breath tests.
Our lawyers challenged the admissibility of the breath readings and observations, arguing that the breath tests were not conducted “as soon as practicable,” as required under section 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code. Testimony from the officer revealed inconsistent note-taking, significant procedural gaps, and reliance on memory for key details.
The court found the officer’s evidence unreliable and ruled that the Crown had failed to meet the statutory requirement for timely breath tests. As a result, the breath readings were excluded, and the Crown could not prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The court acquitted our client of the charge.
Successful Result: Charge Dismissed; No Criminal Record
