DUI & IRS Recent Cases Cases

This client retained our office to deal with an administrative license suspension he had received. The client had driven over to his uncle’s home where the two of them consumed beers while doing renovation work on the garage. Little did they know that another motorist had contacted the RCMP indicating that Mr. T’s vehicle was being driven in an erratic fashion and it was suspected that the driver was impaired. Officers located Mr. T and immediately placed him into handcuffs in the rear of the police vehicle. When a roadside breath sample was requested, Mr. T declined. Overturning the driving prohibition was imperative as he would be unable to work. In the hearing, it was argued that the officer had insufficient information to conclude that it was Mr. T who operated the vehicle. As such, it was argued that the use of handcuffs constituted an arbitrary detention and that he was justified in refusing to provide a sample. Fortunately, the hearing was a success and Mr. T was able to regain his license and continue to provide for his family.

Mr. K was referred to our office from a prior client whom we had successfully represented in an impaired driving prosecution. In fact, our prior client was in the passenger seat when Mr. K. was arrested for impaired operation. Mr. K. was a young man with no criminal record that had been pulled over for speeding here in the city. The officer detected an odor of alcohol in the vehicle and had our client provide a roadside breath test. After blowing a fail on the device, Mr. K. was taken to the police detachment where he was charged. The file was set down for trial with our office filing written argument affiliated with the legitimacy of the demand as well as a unique argument alleging that the officer had violated Mr. K’s right to select counsel of his choice by diverting him towards calling 24hr. legal aid. The argument was a successful one as the Crown terminated the prosecution days before trial.

Mr. M. contacted our office after he had been charged with impaired driving offences. Mr. M. was operating his vehicle when he lost control of it in a residential area and collided with a light post. The accident happened in the middle of the afternoon and required that he be transported via ambulance to the hospital. Officers on scene located a bottle of vodka in the vehicle and obtained a blood sample that was subsequently analyzed. When it was determined that he was 3 times over the legal limit he was charged. This matter was withdrawn by the crown prior to trial on constitutional grounds. Mr. Wyman was able to persuade the crown that Mr. M. had not been given his right to counsel prior to blood being drawn. Further, he argued that the admissions made by the client in the ambulance were a violation of his right to silence.

Our office was retained by Mr. P’s sister, a prominent lawyer. Mr. P.’s wife had called the police as her husband had passed out in his vehicle in front of their home. Officers attended and brought Mr. P. back to the RCMP detachment where he provided breath samples more than 3 times the legal limit (300 mg/%). Mr. P. was a professional and his livelihood was dependent upon ensuring an unblemished criminal record. At trial, our office filed written argument alleging that Mr. P’s constitutional rights were violated by police. It was argued that the officers lacked the grounds to arrest Mr. P. and further, their decision to keep Mr. P. in cells overnight constituted an arbitrary detention. In the end, the charges were withdrawn on the first day of trial.

Mr. M was a firefighter in Red Deer who had been charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle. He had been out drinking with friends when he was pulled over on account of a perceived traffic violation. The officer had him provide a roadside sample and ultimately brought him to the district office for breath samples. Mr. M. was referred to our office by a friend who we had previously successfully represented. The case was a relatively strong one; however, the breath technician had made a typographical error with respect to the certificate that proves the blood alcohol concentration. At trial, this error proved to be fatal and the charges against out client were dismissed.

Mr. R. retained our office to represent him with respect to impaired driving charges out of Airdrie. The client was on his way home from a summer BBQ when he was pulled over by the RCMP for speeding. When he spoke with the officer he admitted to drinking at the event and the officer had him perform a roadside breath test. After failing the test, he was arrested and brought to the RCMP detachment where he provided 2 samples, both of which were over the legal limit. As a professional, avoiding a criminal conviction was imperative. In reviewing the disclosure material, Mr. Wyman identified numerous Charter issues and filed written argument seeking exclusion of the breath samples. Prior to trial, Crown counsel contacted our office with good news for the client. All charges were withdrawn by the prosecution.