DUI & IRS Recent Cases Cases

Mr. G., a Professional Engineer, had been referred to our office by prior clients. He had been charged with impaired/.08 charges after he had been pulled over on his way home from drinks with friends. The matter was set down for trial where Mr. Wyman argued that the officers had failed to comply with the Criminal Code provisions affiliated with roadside breath testing. It was argued that the failure to comply resulted in a violation of our client’s section 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The trial judge agreed and excluded the breath sample. As no other evidence existed to ground a conviction our client was found not guilty.

Mr. V. retained our office to represent him regarding an impaired driving matter. Our client had been out with friends having beers when he was stopped on his way home. Mr. V. failed the roadside and was brought back to the police station where he provided breath samples in excess of the legal limit. The matter proceeded to trial where Mr. Wyman filed a constitutional argument alleging that the officer had improperly conducted the roadside breath test. Specifically, it was alleged that the client was subjected to a de facto arrest when he was placed into handcuffs and taken to the back of the police cruiser for samples. It was argued that the sample should be excluded as the client did not receive his section 10(b) rights to counsel prior to performing the test. The novel argument was a successful one and our client avoided a criminal record.

Another repeat client, Mr. Y was a high-level oil executive. Our client had attended his office on the weekend where he came across a high-end bottle of scotch while combing through some banker boxes. He had a few glasses while he worked and then made his way to a construction store. A significant collision ensued while en route. When police officers arrived on scene they observed considerable indicia of impairment and placed our client under arrest. At the station, Mr. Y. provided breath samples more than double the legal limit. Given the level of impairment there was very little that could be argued at trial. Instead, Mr. Wyman coordinated a treatment program for Mr. Y. Following his completion of the program Mr. Wyman was able to convince the presiding judge to impose a curative discharge. Such a sentence resulted in the client not receiving a criminal record following his completion of a probationary period.

Ms. F., a repeat client, retained Mr. Wyman to defend her against impaired driving charges. Out client attended a local restaurant here in the city and collided with a parked car. Once inside the restaurant, other patrons became concerned that she was impaired. Calgary Police were called and an officer attended and placed Ms. F. under arrest. The file was set down for trial with Mr. Wyman filing a comprehensive brief alleging numerous violations of the client’s section 8, 9 and 10(b) Charter rights. On the eve of trial Crown counsel recognized that the likelihood of conviction was negligible and terminated the prosecution against our client.

Mr. R. was a financial trader here in town who had no experience with the criminal justice system. Following a recreational hockey game, he partook in some drinks with his teammates. Upon returning home, he collided with another vehicle at a stop sign. The other motorist believed he may be inebriated and called the police. Once on scene officers placed Mr. R. under arrest and charged him with impaired operation. After being retained Mr. Wyman obtained the disclosure material which revealed a fatal error by the officers involved. After contacting the assigned Crown prosecutor, the charges were withdrawn shortly after the first appearance.

Our client retained Mr. Wyman after he had been charged with impaired and .08 offences. The client had been pulled over in a Checkstop where he was arrested and provided breath samples at the local District Office. While the file was a run of the mill impaired prosecution, Mr. Wyman identified a strong argument concerning the manner in which the officer administered the applicant’s Charter rights. When the matter proceeded to trial, the Crown recognized that issues existed. As such, it was decided that our client would make a charitable donation. Following B. doing so the charges against him were withdrawn.