Charge Dismissed and Prosecution Stayed: Dangerous Driving and Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample

One woman's fears of losing her driver’s licence, her liberty, and getting a permanent criminal record as a result of an impaired driving investigation, came to an end after two days of trial. 

Police investigated the client’s vehicle in a parking lot adjacent to a nightclub on the belief that she was showing signs of intoxication and that she had struck a police officer with her car while trying to leave the parking lot. By the time the police finally brought a roadside breath-testing machine (officially known as an Approved Screening Device or A.S.D.) to the parking lot, the client allegedly refused to provide a breath sample. She was then arrested and held there for hours without being allowed to call her lawyer while one of the investigating officers completed paperwork to lay the two charges.

Refusing to provide a breath sample is an offence which carries the same minimum penalties as impaired driving or “over 80” (having a blood-alcohol concentration of over 0.08). That penalty for a first offence is a driving prohibition for one year and a $1000 fine. The additional consequences include gaining a criminal record, facing increased car insurance rates, and being required to pay for and comply with provincially administrated programs before getting your licence reinstated and being allowed to drive without restrictions. A dangerous driving charge including an allegation of hitting a police officer can easily lead to significant jail time.

In the course of cross-examination of the police witnesses by Tyler MacDonald, it became clear that the Crown’s case was not as strong as it had appeared on paper. The police officer who the client allegedly struck eventually admitted that the actual driving wasn’t dangerous at all. The police officer who said that he attempted to obtain a breath sample from the client was seriously deficient in following the proper investigative procedures. Many of the things that the officer had asserted with total confidence in his earlier testimony were backed-away from under cross-examination, such that the officer was left simply saying that couldn’t be sure one way or the other as to key details of the investigation. 
 
Halfway through the trial, when the prosecution had finished calling all of its evidence but before the defence had called any evidence, the trial judge dismissed the dangerous driving charge, agreeing with Mr. MacDonald that there was absolutely no evidence of dangerous driving. After that ruling, and after speaking with Mr. MacDonald for a few minutes, the Crown halted the prosecution against the client on the remaining charge (which is called a stay of proceedings) and the client was free to go.