Cases tagged as DUI

Cases in 2022

• R. v. D.K.2022

  The client was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired, and with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol level over 0.08 (also called “over 80”). The client elected to have a trial in Provincial Court. The trial date was rescheduled to a later date because of court closures during the Covid-19 pandemic and scheduling backlogs created by the same. I determined that there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction based on deficiencies in the evidence against the client and the unreasonable delay caused by the trial rescheduling. I discussed this with the crown prosecutor, and the crown prosecutor withdrew the charges so the client had no conviction and no driving prohibition.

  Dangerous Driving DUI

• R. v. T.B.2022

  The client was charged with impaired driving and operation of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level at or over 0.08. A trial date was set after the client plead not guilty. Prior to trial, I comprehensively researched the law relating to violations of the client's rights. I prepared a Notice outlining those violations. The crown prosecutor reviewed the Notice and agreed that the client's rights were violated, and agreed to outright drop both charges. This left the client with no criminal record and no convictions.

  DUI

• R. v. O.S.2022

  The client was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, flight from peace officer in a motor vehicle, driving an uninsured motor vehicle and driving without proper supervision while having a learner license. There was a very serious accident that happened. I was able to have the prosecutor agree to a plea to the dangerous driving charge and driving without proper supervision while having a learner license. The client was sentenced to a small fine and 6 month driving prohibition with all other charges dropped.

  DUI Dangerous Driving

Cases in 2021

• R. v. S.T.2021

  The client was charged with impaired driving and impaired operation at or over 0.08. The matter was set for trial. I filed a Notice alleging the client's rights were violated. We proceeded to trial. The crown prosecutor called their first witness. Once that happened I asked to speak to the prosecutor as I believed it was clear that the prosecutor could not prove that the client drove. The prosecutor agreed and asked the Judge to dismiss the charges against the client. This left the client with no criminal record and no conviction.

  DUI

• R. v. K.C.2021

  The client was charged with a traffic ticket for failing to leave notice of accident. This was a unique file the client was not aware of the accident and there was no real evidence to show this allegation occurred. After receiving disclosure and discussing the file and my opinion to the crown, the ticket was withdrawn.

  DUI

• R. v. D.H.2021

  The client was charged with two traffic tickets - one for driving while uninsured and one for speeding. The client did not have insurance at the time of the offence. After discussions with the Crown, they agreed to accept a guilty plea to a lesser offence of not having a license which meant a significantly reduced fine and far less insurance ramifications. The speeding ticket was withdrawn.

  DUI

• R. v. J.M.2021

  The client was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level of at or over 0.08. When I reviewed disclosure I saw clear breaches of my client's rights. The client plead not guilty and the matter was set for trial. I filed a Notice alleging my client's rights were breached in that the police did not have the grounds to demand a sample of the client's breath and that his rights to speak to a lawyer were violated. The crown prosecutor reviewed the Notice I prepared and agreed to drop both charges. Both charges were withdrawn, leaving the client with no criminal record and no conviction.

  DUI

• R. v. B.K.2021

  The client was charged with impaired driving and failure to comply with a demand for a breath sample. I prepared a Notice alleging that my client's rights were breached when he was arrested and when the police asked for samples of his breath. The Notice was provided to the crown who then reviewed my arguments and agreed to drop the charges. This left my client After filing a charter notice and outlining the clear issues and errors that were made in arresting the client, the Crown entered a stay of proceedings.

  DUI

• R. v. G.M.2021

  The client was charged with impaired driving that resulted in a serious accident. There were a number of civilian witnesses as well as police witnesses who dealt with the client after the accident. The client plead not guilty and a trial date was set. At trial, the crown prosecutor called their first witness. It was apparent with that that the crown could not establish identification. I spoke with the crown prosecutor after the witness had testified for them and asked the crown to invite the judge to dismiss the impaired driving charge as they could not prove it. They agreed, and the crown prosecutor asked the judge to dismiss the charge. This left the client without a criminal record and without a conviction.

  DUI

• R. v. G.P.2021

  The client was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle (impaired driving) and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level of at or over 0.08. I approached the prosecutor after reviewing the disclosure and stating that I thought there were issues with their ability to prove the charges. The prosecutor agreed and the charges were both dropped, leaving the client  with no criminal record and no conviction.

  DUI

• R. v. A.T.2021

  The client was charged with impaired operation and refusal to comply with a demand. The client pled not guilty and the matter was set for trial. After a period of time, but before the trial of the matter, the crown dropped the charges against the client, which resulted in the client having no conviction or criminal record for the charges.

  DUI

• R. v. N.K.2021

  The client was a young professional originally charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit. The client was then later also charged with assaulting a peace officer and resisting. These charges would have greatly impacted her career. Upon resolution discussions with the Crown, I was able to have all charges dropped with a plea to just the impaired driving with the minimum fine and driving prohibition. This left the client in the best position considering the other charges she otherwise could have been convicted of and allowed her to remain in her professional career.

  Assaults DUI Dangerous Driving

Cases in 2020

• R. v. V.K.2020

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit and one traffic ticket was issued. The client gave me instructions to proceed with negotiating with the crown for the best possible plea deal. The crown sought a $2000 fine and a driving prohibition. While a fine and the prohibition were mandatory with minimums established, the crown sought a higher than minimum fine. I fought for the minimum fine, and the court agreed with me. The charge of refusal to provide a sample of breath was withdrawn.

  DUI Dangerous Driving

• R. v. K.H.2020

  The client was charged with impaired operation and failing or refusing to comply with a demand. The matter was set for trial as there were significant issues with the crown's ability to prove the allegations. Eventually, the crown stayed (dropped) the charges. This resulted in the client having no conviction or record.

  DUI

• R. v. A.S.2020

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit. The matter was set for trial. On the day of trial, the crown dropped the charges leaving the client with no conviction and no criminal record.

  DUI Dangerous Driving

• R. v. J.C.2020

  The client was charged with impaired driving and failing or refusing to comply with a demand. The matter was set for trial and I was able to determine the client's Charter rights were infringed and submitted a Charter notice to the Crown. As a result, the Crown decided to only proceed at trial on the impaired charged, not the failure to comply. At trial, there was a lack of evidence in the Crown's case to prove the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The client was acquitted.

  DUI

• R. v. P.H.2020

  The client was charged with impaired operation and operation at or over 0.08. I worked closely with the client After discussions with the crown, they agreed to withdraw the charge.

  DUI

• R. v. D.G.2020

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving at or over 0.08mg/% (blood alcohol concentration). I received and reviewed disclosure, determining that there were potential triable issues. Before the matter reached any substantive court appearances, the charges were dropped by the crown.

  DUI

• R. v. J.K.2020

  The client was charged with impaired operation, operation at or over 0.08, and assaulting a peace officer. The client initially wanted to plead not guilty, as he was adamant that he did not assault the officer. And it was clear from the disclosure that this was true. Ultimately, the client decided to plead guilty to operation at or over 0.08 to resolve the matter quickly. The remaining two charges against him were withdrawn. He was given a fine in the amount of $1500.00 and a one year driving prohibition.

  Assaults DUI Dangerous Driving

• R. v. L.L.2020

  The client was charged with impaired operation. She chose to plead not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. The trial proceeded as scheduled. After the witnesses had been called, the crown announced that she intended to stay the charge, as she felt the trial had not gone well. This was discussed in court and the crown was persuaded to withdraw the charge instead.

  DUI Dangerous Driving

• R. v. J.K.2020

  The client was charged with impaired operation, operation at or over 0.08, and assaulting a peace officer. The client initially wanted to plead not guilty, as he was adamant that he did not assault the officer. And it was clear from the disclosure that this was true. Ultimately, the client decided to plead guilty to operation at or over 0.08 to resolve the matter quickly. The remaining two charges against him were withdrawn. He was given a fine in the amount of $1500.00 and a one year driving prohibition.

  DUI

• R. v. L.L.2020

  The client was charged with impaired operation. She chose to plead not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. The trial proceeded as scheduled. After the witnesses had been called, the crown announced that she intended to stay the charge, as she felt the trial had not gone well. This was discussed in court and the crown was persuaded to withdraw the charge instead.

  DUI

Cases in 2019

• R. v. P.C.2019

  The client was charged with impaired operation and operation at or over 0.08. The client pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. Upon reviewing the disclosure, it was clear there were issues during the police officer’s dealings with the client. A charter notice was filed regarding these breaches. The notice was successful in convincing the crown there were triable issues and she entered a stay of proceedings on the file.

  DUI Dangerous Driving

• R. v. M.L.2019

  The client was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm, having a blood alcohol level over the legal limit causing bodily harm, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm. He pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm and the other two counts were withdrawn. He received a sentence of incarceration for a period of 8 months and a 2 year driving prohibition. As he had already been without his license since the time of the incident, he was left with 12 months and 1 week before it could be reinstated.

  DUI Dangerous Driving

• R. v. R.M.2019

  The client was charged with impaired operation and operation at or over 0.08. The client pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the judge adjourned to the following morning, at which time she would give her decision. The client was found guilty of operation at or over 0.08 and the impaired charge was withdrawn. He received a fine in the amount of $1500.00 and a driving prohibition for one year.

  DUI Dangerous Driving

• R. v. A.J.2019

  The client was charged with impaired operation, failing to provide insurance, failing to provide registration, failing to provide a driver's license, and unauthorized possession of a prohibited weapon. He pleaded not guilty and the matters were set down for trial. During a review of the disclosure, it was apparent there were some definite potential charter issues. The crown was approached to discuss resolution. They agreed to accept a guilty plea for possession of a prohibited weapon and all the remaining charges would be withdrawn. The client received a $2500.00 fine, as well as a five year prohibition on possessing any weapons. The prohibited weapon in question was confiscated. The client avoided jail time and any convictions regarding his driver's abstract.

  Weapons DUI Dangerous Driving

• R. v. P.C.2019

  The client was charged with impaired operation and operation at or over 0.08. The client pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. Upon reviewing the disclosure, it was clear there were issues during the police officer’s dealings with the client. A charter notice was filed regarding these breaches. The notice was successful in convincing the crown there were triable issues and she entered a stay of proceedings on the file.

  DUI

• R. v. M.L.2019

  The client was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm, having a blood alcohol level over the legal limit causing bodily harm, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm. He pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm and the other two counts were withdrawn. He received a sentence of incarceration for a period of 8 months and a 2 year driving prohibition. As he had already been without his license since the time of the incident, he was left with 12 months and 1 week before it could be reinstated.

  DUI

• R. v. R.M.2019

  The client was charged with impaired operation and operation at or over 0.08. The client pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the judge adjourned to the following morning, at which time she would give her decision. The client was found guilty of operation at or over 0.08 and the impaired charge was withdrawn. He received a fine in the amount of $1500.00 and a driving prohibition for one year.

  DUI

• R. v. B.L.2019

  The client was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and driving with a blood alcohol concentration at or over 0.08 pursuant to the new provisions of the Criminal Code (operating a conveyance). I took instructions from the client and entered a plea of not guilty and set a trial date. Prior to the trial date, I filed a notice alleging my client's rights were violated by police. The crown prosecutor assigned to the file reviewed that notice and agreed to drop both of the charges. My client was left without a criminal record and without a conviction.

  DUI

• R. v. A.C.2019

  The client was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample. He also received a traffic ticket for failing to provide a driver's license. The client pleaded not guilty and the matters were set down for trial. I prepared for the trial, including preparing legal arguments, conducting legal research, preparing cross-examinations of the officers, and filing a notice alleging my client's rights had been violated. On the day of trial, after discussions with the crown, the crown agreed to drop all charges as there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction given the work I had done on the file. This left my client with no criminal record and no conviction.

  DUI Obstruction

• R. v. C.R.2019

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration of over 0.08. He pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. I prepared for the trial, and on the trial date, we conducted a voir dire regarding my argument that the officer had no reasonable grounds to request a sample of my client's breath. The trial judge agreed with my arguments and excluded the evidence of the breath samples. The breath samples were not in evidence, and the client was acquitted on both the impaired driving (DUI) and the over 0.08. The client was left with no criminal record and no conviction.

  DUI

• R. v. J.T.2019

  The client was charged with impaired operation and operation at or over 0.08. He decided to plead guilty to operation at or over 0.08. He received a fine in the amount of $1500.00 and a one-year driving prohibition. The impaired charge was withdrawn.

  DUI Probation

• R. v. A.L.2019

  The client was charged with impaired operation and failing or refusing to comply with a demand. He pleaded guilty to failing to comply. He received a fine along with a driving prohibition for a period of one year. The impaired driving charge was withdrawn.

  DUI

• R. v. K.G.2019

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. The client's readings were high. The client elected to enter a plea of guilty to the over 0.08. I successful applied for a curative discharge for the client, leaving her with no conviction. The impaired driving charge was dropped.

  DUI

• R. v. P.T.2019

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. She pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. When I prepared for the trial, I carefully combed through all of the disclosure, including reviewing the video evidence. In doing so, I determined that the officer had read the client the incorrect demand for a breath sample. I brought the matter to the crown'’s attention, and she agreed that it was fatal to the crown'’s case, so she withdrew (dropped) both the impaired driving and the over 0.08, leaving my client with no criminal record and no conviction.

  DUI

• R. v. D.R.2019

  The client was charged with impaired driving, driving over 0.08, and failing to comply with a probation order. On behalf of my client, we entered a not guilty plea to both charges and set the matter down for trial. The first trial date was set, and the matter could not proceed. Another trial date was set. At that second trial date, the primary investigator advised they would be away on holidays for a period of time and would not be attending court. The crown applied for an adjournment of the trial. A third trial date was set. On that third date, the officer again said they were going to be away and would not attend. Given that, the crown decided to enter a stay of proceedings as it was clear that the officer was not taking the file seriously. This left my client with both charges dropped, no criminal record, and no conviction.

  DUI

• R. v. J.S.2019

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. He pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. From my review of the disclosure (evidence) against my client, I determined that there was a serious breach of my client'’s rights in relation to speaking to counsel at the police station. At trial, the prosecutor agreed with my argument and agreed to drop both charges. The client was able to get his license back and was left without a criminal record and without a conviction.

  DUI

Cases in 2018

• R. v. D.T2018

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. The client pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. At trial, the crown had not subpoenaed the breath technician, however still planned to run the trial for the impaired. After discussions with the crown, they were convinced to withdraw both charges. The client avoided a criminal record and was able to get his licence back forthwith.

  DUI

• R. v. S.W.2018

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. The client pleaded guilty to driving over 0.08 and the impaired charge was withdrawn. A curative discharge application was made and was successful. The client walked away with no conviction on his record.

  DUI

• R. v. D.A.2018

  The client was charged with impaired driving, driving over 0.08 and transporting liquor in a vehicle within easy access of an occupant. He pleaded guilty to driving over 0.08 and the other two charges against him were withdrawn. He received a fine plus a victim fine surcharge and a one year driving prohibition, with eligibility for the interlock after three months.

  DUI

• R. v. J.C.2018

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. The client was also charged with a traffic offence of operating a motor vehicle with an expired license. The client pleaded guilty to driving over 0.08 and the other charge, plus the traffic matter, were withdrawn. The client received a fine plus a victim fine surcharge and a one year driving prohibition with eligibility for the interlock after three months.

  DUI

• R. v. D.C.2018

  The client was charged with impaired driving, driving over 0.08 and failing to stop at a stop sign. The client pleaded not guilty and the matter was set for trial. Prior to trial, I filed a notice alleging my client's rights were violated. The week before the trial, the crown agreed to drop the criminal charges. The client was free to go and get his driver'’s license back the next date. The client thus had no conviction and no criminal record.

  DUI Dangerous Driving

• R. v. P.A.2018

  The client was charged with impaired driving and refusing to comply with a demand. He pleaded guilty to the impaired charge and the refusal charge was withdrawn. The client was sentenced to a fine plus a victim fine surcharge and a one year driving prohibition, with eligibility for the interlock after three months.

  DUI Administrative Offences

• R. v. S.T.2018

  The client was charged with impaired driving, driving over 0.08 and speeding. The client pleaded guilty to driving over 0.08 and the other two charges were withdrawn. The client received a fine plus a victim fine surcharge and a one year driving prohibition, with eligibility for the interlock after three months.

  DUI Dangerous Driving

• R. v. A.N.2018

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. He pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. I filed a notice to challenge the charges on the basis that my client'’s rights were violated by the officers. The day before the trial, the crown stayed the charges on the basis of violations of my client'’s rights, along with issues relating to one of the officers involved.

  DUI

• R. v. R.C.2018

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. I extensively reviewed the file with a view to determining what the triable issues were for the impaired driving and over 0.08 charges. I determined that there were a number of issues that could result in my client being found not guilty. I took instructions from the client to plead not guilty and to set the matter for trial. I prepared for the trial including legal research, arguments, and preparations for cross-examination of the police officers. On the trial date, the crown withdrew both charges against my client as they realized they did not have a reasonable likelihood of conviction. The charges were both dropped against my client, leaving him without a criminal record and without a conviction.

  DUI

• R. v. S.F.2018

  The client was charged with refusing to comply with a demand for a roadside breath sample in relation to an impaired driving investigation. After reviewing the file, I determined that there were a number of issues that could be raised at trial. The client elected to plead not guilty, and the matter was set down for trial. Prior to the trial date, I filed a notice with the court alleging my client'’s rights were violated. The crown received a copy of the notice and advised me ahead of the trial date that they agreed with my arguments and would be dropping the charge. My client was left with a clean record and no conviction.

  DUI Administrative Offences

• R. v. S.C.2018

  The client was charged with impaired driving (DUI) and refusing or failing to comply with a breath demand. I reviewed the evidence (disclosure) against the client. I determined that there were a number of issues that could result in a not guilty finding. The client decided to plead not guilty, and we set the matter for trial. Prior to the trial date, I filed a notice with the court alleging my client'’s rights were violated. The crown prosecutor received a copy of the notice and on the trial date, agreed to resolve the matter by way of a plea to a traffic ticket instead, leaving my client without a criminal charge and without a criminal conviction. The impaired driving charge and the refusal charges were withdrawn.

  DUI

• R. v. A.K.2018

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. I reviewed the file and took instructions from the client to enter a not guilty plea and to set the matter for trial. I prepared for the trial, including legal research and arguments, and preparations for cross-examination of the police officers. On the date of trial, the crown dropped both the impaired driving charge (DUI) and the over 0.08 charge. The client was left without a criminal record and without a conviction.

  DUI

• R. v. R.B.2018

  The client was charged with refusing to comply with a demand for a breath sample as a result of an impaired driving (DUI)/over 0.08 investigation. After reviewing the file, I received instructions from the client on the basis of my legal advice to plead not guilty and set the matter for trial. I prepared for the trial, including conducting legal research and filing a Charter notice relating to my client'’s rights being violated. On the day of trial, the crown agreed that there were issues with their case, and that my client'’s rights were violated. The crown agreed to drop the charge, leaving my client without a criminal record and without a conviction.

  DUI

• R. v. K.F.2018

  The client was charged with impaired driving (DUI), driving over 0.08 and traffic tickets. The client provided me with instructions to proceed with a guilty plea to the driver over 0.08. The client received a fine and a driving prohibition. The impaired driving charge was dropped, as were the traffic tickets.

  DUI

• R. v. S.S2018

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. After reviewing the file and providing the client with legal advice, I took instructions from the client to enter a plea of not guilty and to set the matter for trial. I prepared for the trial, including conducting legal research, and preparations for cross-examination of the police witnesses. On the day of trial, I was able to negotiate with the crown prosecutor to have the charges of impaired driving and over 0.08 withdrawn (dropped). My client was left without a criminal record and without convictions.

  DUI

Cases in 2017

• R. v. C.T.2017

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. He also received two tickets as a result of this incident. He plead guilty to driving over 0.08. In doing so the impaired charge and the tickets were withdrawn. He received a fine, as well as a victim fine surcharge, and a one-year driving prohibition.

  DUI

• R. v. V.B.2017

  The client was charged with impaired driving, driving over 0.08 and dangerous driving. He plead guilty to driving over 0.08. The other two charges were withdrawn. He received a fine, as well as a victim fine surcharge, and a one-year driving prohibition. Jail time was avoided.

  DUI

• R. v. J.H.2017

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. I reviewed the file and determined that during the check stop there were breaches of the client's rights. The client entered a not guilty plea and the matter was set for trial. I filed a notice with the court to allege that my client'’s rights were violated. After filing that notice, the crown stayed the charges. The client was able to get their license back within a few days, and avoided a conviction and a driving prohibition. No record. No conviction.

  DUI

• R. v. D.K.2017

  The client was charged with impaired driving and failure to provide a breath sample. He plead guilty to the impaired charge and the failure to provide charge was withdrawn. A curative discharge application was made by Ms. Karpa, and with Ms. Karpa'’s written brief, the crown and the judge agreed to the discharge. No conviction.

  DUI

• R. v. S.F.2017

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. I reviewed the file in detail, and determined that there were multiple violations of the client'’s rights. The client entered a not guilty plea, and the matter was set for trial. I filed a notice with the court to allege that the client's rights were violated. After filing that notice, the crown withdrew the charges. The client was able to get their license back within a few days, and avoided a conviction and a driving prohibition. No record. No conviction.

  DUI

• R. v. B.D.2017

  The client was charged with impaired driving and a failure/refusal to provide a breath sample. The client plead guilty to the impaired charge and the matter was adjourned for a curative discharge application. After Ms. Karpa reviewed the matter with the crown and prepared lengthy written submissions, the crown agreed to the discharge application. The client avoided jail time and ended up with conditions and a finding of guilt but no conviction.

  DUI

• R. v. C.B.2017

  The client was charged with dangerous driving and impaired driving. Ms. Karpa met with the crown and the crown agreed to a plea to a reduced charge driving over 0.08 for a conditional discharge. The dangerous driving charge was withdrawn.

  DUI Dangerous Driving

• R. v. D.K.2017

  The client was charged with impaired driving and failure to provide a breath sample. He plead guilty to the impaired charge and the failure to provide charge was withdrawn. A curative discharge application was made by Ms. Karpa, and with Ms. Karpa's written brief, the crown and the judge agreed to the discharge. No conviction.

  DUI

• R. v. G.S.2017

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. The charge was withdrawn on the basis that Ms. Karpa determined that a breath demand was never read to the accused. Client's license was returned to her on the basis that the charge was withdrawn.

  DUI

Cases in 2016

• R. v. K.C.2016

  The client was charged with impaired driving. Despite a recent related record, Ms. Karpa convinced the crown to agree to a fine and not jail.

  DUI

• R. v. D.J.2016

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. Based upon extenuating circumstances, which Ms. Karpa worked to verify, the charges against the client were withdrawn. No conviction. No criminal record.

  DUI

• R. v. A.H.2016

  The client was charged with 8 counts of impaired driving. He was facing extensive jail time given a prior record. Ms. Karpa worked to negotiate a resolution with the crown where the crown sought jail time, but Ms. Karpa could argue for a conditional sentence so that the client would not have to face time in jail. Ms. Karpa was successful in that argument when she proposed the no jail time to the court.

  DUI

• R. v. I.N.2016

  The client was charged with refusal to provide a sample of his breath to an officer for the purpose of analyzing alcohol content. Ms. Karpa got the charge withdrawn and the client received his driver'’s license back.

  DUI

Cases in 2015

• R. v. A.B.2015

  The client as charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm and failure to provide a breath sample. The crown agreed to a plea to the offence of failure to provide a breath sample after Ms. Karpa reviewed the file and found problems with the crown'’s case. Initially the client faced a jail sentence, however, Ms. Karpa secured a plea to the summary conviction offence versus to the indictable offence for a fine and a driving prohibition.

  DUI Administrative Offences

• R. v. L.K.2015

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving while over the legal limit (DUI). After Calgary criminal lawyer Susan Karpa reviewed the file, she determined that there was a serious breach of the client'’s rights, and that the Crown would not be in a position to move forward with that prosecution because the client'’s rights were violated. Both charges were dropped. No criminal record. Client received his license back.

  DUI Dangerous Driving

• R. v. K.P.2015

  The client was charged with impaired driving. Ms. Karpa thoroughly reviewed the file with her client, and approached the Crown to withdraw the charge. The charge was ultimately dropped/withdrawn. No criminal record/no conviction.

  DUI

Cases in 2014

• R. v. B.S.2014

  Client was charged with impaired driving and driving over .08 (DUI). Ms. Karpa got the charges both dropped against her client. No criminal record/no conviction.

  DUI

Cases in 2013

• R. v. D.G.2013

  Client was charged with impaired driving. All charges were dismissed. No conviction/no criminal record.

  DUI