More Successful Case Examples

To join the winners, contact Jonathan at: 416 222 4324.
 

Erratic driving and failure to stop – J. Singh (Brampton)

Charge(s): Impaired / Over 80

Facts: Very bad driving involving weaving from lane to lane and failing to stop when instructed to do so by the police. Very high readings of 290mgs% and 280mgs%.

Consequences: Lengthy suspension and jail due to 3 previous convictions for drinking and driving.

Results: Jonathan Lapid was able to adjourn the case on several occasions based on circumstances relating to Court administration and Crown Attorney's Office failure to provide full and timely disclosure. On the fourth trial date, the material witnesses failed to attend. Crown advised the Court quite properly that this matter has somehow fallen through the cracks of the overburdened Court system. Client is denied his day in Court, but is rewarded with the charges being withdrawn.

Young man, night of partying – D. T. (Newmarket)

Charge(s): Over 80

Facts: Young male client, supported by family, wished to fight the charge based on a night of partying at a local entertainment area in the City of Richmond Hill. His readings were low but nonetheless over the legal limit.

Consequences: Loss of license, but more importantly, a criminal record for a young individual seeking employment.

Result: At trial, Jonathan Lapid identified several technicalities that became clear from the police officer’s examination in chief as well as obvious mistakes that were shown by Mr. Lapid's thorough cross-examination.

The Court was satisfied that the police officer failed to properly identify the roadside device and assure the Court of its reliability and proper functioning based on a qualified calibration pursuant to the standard operating procedure as set out in the operators’ manual, as well as clearly and accurately advise the Court what a 'F' or 'Fail' result indicates on this roadside instrument. The charge was dismissed.

Stopped at side of road – M. London (Oshawa)

Charge(s): Over 80

Facts: Client was feeling unwell as he was driving on the highway. Driver made a decision that whether it was the alcohol or food or illness, it was probably wise to pull to the side of the road and not to drive. Client was at the side of road for several hours and made a decision not to drive, rather to call for a ride home. Police arrived at the location and arrested him for being impaired while in care or control of a motor vehicle.

Consequences: Standard consequences, as well as loss of employment and problems at home if convicted.

Result: Both Jonathan Lapid and Crown Attorney exchanged cases that applied in this matter. The Judge reviewed all case law material presented to him and dismissed the charge.

Outside a local bar – D. Giller (Barrie)

Charge(s): Over 80

Facts: Business executive was stopped by a very inexperienced, young police officer who was waiting just outside a local bar to check drivers for sobriety. This officer was so fresh that he did not even know the proper directions to the police station where he was to take the client's breath samples. This caused some delay in the process.

Consequences: Criminal conviction would have employment ramifications. Loss of licence and insurance would exacerbate things with his family.

Results: Jonathan Lapid cross-examined the police officer to demonstrate to the judge that the delay caused by the officer's inexperience was a breach of the 'as soon as practicable' requirement in the Criminal Code of Canada. Even though the Crown Attorney, quite properly, gave the judge a recent Court of Appeal case which strongly supported the Crown position, Mr. Lapid was able to differentiate from this case on the basis that the police officer's inexperience ought not give the client a criminal record, much like an inexperienced commercial airline pilot ought not be flying an airplane flown on by the Judge, nor an inexperienced surgeon be operating on His Honour. Mr. Lapid argued that the citizens of Ontario expect a higher standard from their police officers than the one in Court that day. The Judge agreed and threw out the charge.

Refused to provide a breath sample – A.S. (Etobicoke)

Charges: Refusal to provide breath sample

Facts: After being involved in an automobile accident, client was given several opportunities to provide a sample of her breath and was unable to do so.

Consequences: Same as if convicted on a charge of Impaired Driving or Driving while Over 80

Result: Jonathan Lapid demonstrated to the Judge that the client never refused to provide a breath sample either by verbal statement or some gesture. In fact, the Judge found that the client was making genuine efforts to provide a sample and only failed to do so because of a medical condition involving an injury around and inside the mouth area resulting from the motor vehicle accident itself. The client was found to be innocent, and the charge was thrown out.