Translate aswanidatt.com
    Translate from:

    Translate to:

DUI Lawyer Serving Mississauga & Brampton

The offences of impaired driving, Over 80 and Refuse cases are serious offences and require the services of an experience lawyer.

Any time you are questioned by the police, you have a right to seek to a lawyer or an interpreter if English is not your first language.

You must exercise this right at all times, whether it is at the side of your car, in the police cruiser or at the police station. Your right to speak to a lawyer of your choice is your fundamental right and never give this up this right.

Often, people try to explain what happened hoping that the police will let them go or give them sympathy. This is absolutely the wrong approach to take.

The police have a duty to investigate and lay charges. They are not there to give you sympathy. The more you talk, the more easier you make their jobs and the harded it becomes to defend you later at trial.

The offences of impaired driving, Over 80 and Refuse cases are serious offences and require the services of an experience lawyer.

Any time you are questioned by the police, you have a right to seek to a lawyer or an interpreter if English is not your first language.

You must exercise this right at all times, whether it is at the side of your car, in the police cruiser or at the police station. Your right to speak to a lawyer of your choice is your fundamental right and never give this up this right.

Often, people try to explain what happened hoping that the police will let them go or give them sympathy. This is absolutely the wrong approach to take.

The police have a duty to investigate and lay charges. They are not there to give you sympathy. The more you talk, the more easily you make their jobs and the harder it becomes to defend you later at trial.

Impaired Driving:

This offence includes the operation or care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft while one’s ability to operate is impaired by alcohol or a drug (including marijuana).

If the evidence of impairment is so weak as to leave the trial judge with a reasonable doubt as to impairment, the accused must be found not guilty.

Some of the factors that the Crown will try to prove impairment are as follows: 

  • Bad driving.
  • The odor of alcohol coming from the accused.
  • Red glassy, watery or bloodshot eyes and/or dilated pupils.
  • Slurred speech.
  • Flushed complexion.
  • Unsteady on feet.
  • Difficulty in producing documents.

However, these “facts” can have other logical and reasonable inferences.  Here are some examples:

  • An unusual pattern of driving may be caused by vehicle (mechanical) defect, road conditions, or the driver may have been momentarily distracted.
  • The odor of alcohol is consistent with its recent consumption, but is not necessarily indicative of impairment. (Just because a person has been drinking, that doesn’t mean that he or she is impaired). The odor of alcohol may also be coming from somewhere other than breath (for example if alcohol was spilled on a persons clothing).
  • Glassy, watery and bloodshot eyes are consistent with being over-tired, being in a smoky room, or many other causes.
  • Slurred speech may be caused by reasons other than impairment such as dental or medical problems.
  • Unsteadiness or lack of balance might be caused by footwear, medical conditions, or the condition of the surface that the person is walking on.
  • Difficulty producing documents can be caused by nervousness (some people get nervous when stopped and questioned by police).

Over 80:

Driving over .08 (over 80) refers to the amount of alcohol in a your blood. If the level of alcohol in your blood was greater than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood at the time of driving, then the charge is proved.

A person may be convicted of driving over.08 even if he appears sober if his blood alcohol level is over the legal limit.  In fact, most alcoholics show little or no signs of impairment.

Driving over .08 is a technical and complicated area of law, and the police and the prosecution must follow a strict set of procedures in order to have proof of a breath/blood test admitted into evidence.

Reasonable grounds for the breath/blood test

To start with, think of the breath/blood test as a police search. The only difference is, instead of the police searching your house (for example), they are searching your blood for evidence of alcohol. The method of the search is through a breath or blood test.

But before the police can conduct a lawful search, they need to have the proper grounds to do so. The police can’t just walk into your house, and they can’t demand a sample of your breath or blood without reasonable and probable grounds. The police must respect the responsibilities placed on them by the Charter of Rights, which protects all citizens from unreasonable search and seizure.

The judge will hear the evidence surrounding the circumstances, which led up to the breath/blood test, and will determine whether the police had the required grounds to demand the sample. In some cases the judge will determine that the grounds did not exist, and the breath test results will not be admitted.

The criminal code sets out a strict procedure that the police must follow when making a demand and taking a breath/blood sample. If the procedure is not followed, the test results may be excluded from evidence.

The results of the breath test are not always correct.

  • The police officer conducting the test may make an error.
  • The machine itself may be improperly maintained, producing erroneous results.
  • The amount of alcohol you drank (before or after driving) may not have resulted in a blood alcohol concentration that was over the legal limit (this is called “bolus drinking”).
  • Your blood alcohol reading may be over the limit at the time you provided the sample, but under the limit at the time you were driving.

Evidence, which contradicts the results of the breath/blood test, is commonly referred to as “evidence to the contrary”.

Refusal to Provide Samples

The charge of “refusal” arises when a person, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with a lawful breath or blood demand made to him by a peace officer. The penalties for this charge are as severe, and in some cases more so, as for impaired driving or driving over .08.

The charge can arise if you fail to comply with a demand for either a roadside screening device test, or for failing comply with a demand for a breath sample at the police station.

While it may seem as though a charge of refusing to comply with a breath demand is straight forward, it is not. The circumstances surrounding the making of the demand must be examined to determine if the demand was legal, or if there was some other reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the demand. A criminal lawyer such as Aswani K. Datt knows how to explore all of the legal avenues, which may lead to a successful defense of this charge.

Can the machine be wrong?:

Definitely. Breath testing equipment can produce false positive readings.  For example:

  • Human error.
  • The testing device may not have been properly maintained and calibrated.
  • Your individual characteristics regarding alcohol absorption and elimination rates may be different from the norm. Testing equipment doesn’t take this into account.  A toxicologist expert would have to be retained to provide a report on your personal characteristics versus the readings provided by the machine.

The timing of the breath test may not be a true reading of your blood alcohol level of when you were driving your car.  Most breath tests are taken sometime after the person has been stopped driving, and has been taken to the police station. The legal question is: what was your blood alcohol level at the time you were operating the vehicle, and not what was your blood alcohol reading at the police station when you provided your breath sample?

Your blood alcohol level could have been under .08 when you were driving, but over .08 by the time you took the breath test at the station.

Penalties:

For a first offence: a minimum fine of $600, plus the victim fine surcharge; a minimum one-year driving prohibition.

For a second offence: a minimum jail sentence of 14 days; a minimum three-year driving prohibition.

For a third offence and subsequent offences: a minimum jail sentence of 90 days; a driving prohibition of at least three years.

IMPORTANT: Driving prohibitions apply 24 hours a day, seven days a week throughout Canada. The court-imposed (Federal) driving prohibition runs concurrently with the Provincial license suspension. The Province may suspend your license for an even longer period than the court-imposed prohibition. While prohibitions and suspensions normally commence upon conviction, it is possible that the Province, prior to you going to trial, may suspend your license.

Car Insurance: Motor vehicle insurance rates often skyrocket after an impaired driving conviction. Many times, only a high-risk insurance company, charging double the normal rates, will insure a convicted impaired driver

Ignition Interlock:  You will have to install an ignition interlock system in any car you wish to operate.  An ignition interlock device is an in-car alcohol breath screening device that prevents a vehicle from starting if it detects a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) over a pre-set limit of .02 (i.e., 20 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood). The device is located inside the vehicle, near the driver’s seat, and is connected to the engine’s ignition system.

Everyone who commits an impaired driving offence on or after December 23, 2001, and is subsequently convicted, must have the ignition interlock device installed after their license is reinstated if they want to drive. To have their driver’s license reinstated, they must first complete the mandatory suspension period and all other licensing requirements including the Remedial Measures Program (assessment, education or treatment and follow-up).

The device is installed for the ignition interlock condition period. It must be used by anyone who drives the vehicle, including family and friends. Offenders can choose not to drive until the ignition interlock condition is removed from their license.

Drivers subject to an ignition interlock condition are responsible for all installation and maintenance costs for the device.

New Legislation on Civil Remedies (Ontario):

Ontario has passed new legislation for keeping Ontario’s roads and families safe from people who repeatedly choose to drink and drive (2008).

The new law allows the civil courts, at the request of the Attorney General, to impound and forfeit a vehicle, if the court finds:

That the vehicle was involved in, or is likely to be involved in, a drinking and driving offence, AND

The vehicle is owned or driven by a person whose driver’s licence has been suspended for a drinking and driving offence two or more times in the preceding 10 years

Victims of the activity which resulted in the forfeiture may apply for compensation from the proceeds of sale.

The new amendments to the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, were introduced in the Safer Roads for a Safer Ontario Act, 2007, and target vehicles used by people who repeatedly drink and drive.

Penalty Chart:

 

Penalty Chart for Drinking and Driving
  Highway Traffic Act, Ontario Criminal Code (minimum)
1st Offence
  • 1 year licence suspension*
  • Remedial measures requirement
  • Minimum 1 year ignition interlock condition upon reinstatement
  • 1 year driving prohibition
  • $600 fine
2nd Offence
  • 3-year licence suspension*
  • Remedial measures requirement
  • Minimum 3 years ignition interlock condition upon reinstatement
  • 2-year driving prohibition
  • 14-day jail sentence
3rd Offence


  • Lifetime licence suspension*

    (reducible to 10 years if remedial measures requirement and other conditions met)

  • Ignition interlock condition for life if suspension reduced
  • 3-year driving prohibition
  • 90-day jail sentence
Subsequence Offences


  • Lifetime licence suspension*
  • No possibility of reinstatement
  • Same as 3rd Offence

Drivers who are found guilty of driving while their licence is suspended for a Criminal Codeconviction will have the vehicle they are driving impounded and face fines from $5,000 – $50,000 under the Highway Traffic Act.

Contact the Law Office of Aswani K. Datt for a  consultation. I offer strategic, intelligent and aggressive advocacy focused on your rights

Contact
Contact Us
905-755-0104

Toll Free: 1844DATTLAW (1-844-328-8529

295 Matheson Blvd. East
Mississauga, Ontario
L4Z 1X8
map it
Twitter
Facebook
Google +
Linkedin
View Aswani Datt's profile on LinkedIn