The Queen vs. The Defendant

Cases for Impaired Driving & Other Driving Offences

Cases in 2020

  • R. v. K.N.2020

    The client was charged with two different traffic violations: failing to proceed safely after stopping through an intersection and careless driving. I worked with the client to present a package of information and documentation to the crown to resolve the tickets in the best possible way so that the client did not receive significant demerits. I was able to convince the prosecutor to reduce the fine amounts for the one ticket, and then to reduce the remaining ticket to a different infraction which resulted in less than half of the demerits.

  • 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 The remaining two charges against him were withdrawn.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.

  • 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.

  • R. v. B.R.2020

    The client was charged with operation of a motor vehicle while prohibited. He pleaded guilty and, though the crown was seeking an incarceration period of 30 days, he ended up receiving a fine in the amount of $1500.00.

  • 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
  • R. v. B.R.2020

    The client was charged with operation of a motor vehicle while prohibited. He pleaded guilty and, though the crown was seeking an incarceration period of 30 days, he ended up receiving a fine in the amount of $1500.00.

Cases in 2019

  • R. v. D.P.2019

    The client was charged with failing to obey a yield sign before entering a highway. Unfortunately a fatality occurred and he was charged on a long information. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a 60 day driving suspension, along with a $1500.00 fine.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • R. v. D.P.2019

    The client was charged with failing to obey a yield sign before entering a highway. Unfortunately a fatality occurred and he was charged on a long information. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a 60 day driving suspension, along with a $1500.00 fine.

  • 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. 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.

  • R. v. B.S.2019

    The client was charged with driving while unauthorized pursuant to the Traffic Safety Act. Normally the charge would attract another driving prohibition and potentially jail. However, I negotiated with the crown and my client plead guilty to a lesser included offence of driving without a valid license and received a small fine.dr

  • 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. J.R.2019

    The client was charged under the Traffic Safety Act with exceeding the maximum speed limit. The ramifications of the penalty for the ticket as it stood would have meant the client would have lost his job. However, I negotiated with the crown prosecutor and was able to reduce the ticket significantly, so that the client was left with half of the demerits he would have received without me negotiating the deal for him. The client was able to maintain his employment.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. C.J.2019

    The client was charged with driving while disqualified and failing to appear for court. The client had an extensive related record. I worked with the client to gather as much information and documentation as I could so that I could approach the crown to resolve the matter by way of pleas to traffic tickets versus criminal charges. The crown agreed with my arguments, and in the end, the client received traffic ticket convictions only, no criminal convictions and no criminal record entries. He received a small fine.

  • 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
  • R. v. S.J.2019

    The client was charged with multiple driving offences including theft of a motor vehicle, failing to stop at the scene of an accident and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. He was also charged with possession of property obtained by crime under $5000.00, three counts of breaching probation, six counts of failing to comply and one count of failing to appear. He pleaded guilty to the driving offences, possession of stolen property and breaching probation, along with failures to comply and failing to appear. The remaining charges were withdrawn. The client had an extensive related criminal record. The crown was initially seeking substantial jail time, but I was able to have the jail time reduced significantly for the client. The remainder of his charges were withdrawn.

Cases in 2018

  • R. v. K.W.2018

    The client was charged with failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. After extensive discussions with the traffic crown, the crown was persuaded to accept the client'’s plea to the lesser and included offence of failing to obey a traffic device. Subsequently, the client only lost two demerits and received a $400.00 fine.

  • R. v. C.K.2018

    This was a youth matter. The client was charged with criminal negligence in operating a motor vehicle causing bodily harm and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm. The client pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. Upon conclusion of the trial, the judge adjourned for decision, and later acquitted the client of both charges.

  • 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. T.L.2018

    The client was charged with driving while unauthorized. After ECR discussions with the traffic crown, they agreed to accept a guilty plea to driving without a licence. The client was given a fine and time to pay.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • R. v. J.C.2018

    The client was charged with driving while disqualified and failing to appear. I met with the crown to negotiate a resolution of the matter by way of a withdrawal of the charges. The crown agreed that it was not in the public interest to prosecute the client, and the charges were withdrawn.

  • 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.

  • R. v. H.W.2018

    The client was charged with failing or refusing to comply with a demand. The client entered a pleaded guilty and received a fine plus a one year driving prohibition, with eligibility for the interlock after three months.

  • 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. L.S.2018

    The client was charged with dangerous driving and failing to remain at the scene of an accident, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. The crown prosecutor assigned to the file took the view that the allegation was serious, as it involved a '“road rage'” type of incident. I had the client complete a number of tasks for me, and then met with the prosecutor to try to negotiate a resolution that would leave my client without a criminal record and without a conviction. I was successful in doing so, and my client plead guilty to a lesser included offence under the Traffic Safety Act of leaving the scene as a registered owner. This left my client without any demerits, and without a criminal charge or conviction.

  • 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.

  • 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.L.2017

    The client was charged with speeding (50km over the limit). The client would have had a suspended license with a guilty plea to that offence. Instead, I was able to negotiate with the crown to have the charge reduced so that the client walked away with a fine, and their license intact.

  • 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. D.T.2017

    The client was charged with dangerous driving and flight from police. This was a very serious allegation, for which the crown was originally seeking a hefty penalty due to the need for general deterrence. However, after much negotiations, the crown was agreeable to withdrawing the flight from police charge, and agreed to a plea to the dangerous driving for a fine.

  • 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.

  • 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. K.M.2017

    The client was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. Ms. Karpa negotiated a plea deal where the client would plead guilty to a non-criminal offence: driving without due care and attention. The client received a$500 fine. No criminal record. No conviction.

  • R. v. K.M.2017

    The client was issued a ticket for careless driving. Ms. Karpa negotiated with the crown to resolve the matter with a lesser offence. The client received a fine for the lesser offence. Because the careless driving ticket was avoided, the client did not receive the high demerits associated with that ticket.

  • 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.S.2016

    The client was charged with careless driving in relation to a serious accident. The complainant was brain injured as a result of the accident. Ms. Karpa negotiated with the Crown for a plea to a lesser included offence for a fine and two demerits only.

  • 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. M.B.2016

    The client was charged with possession of a stolen vehicle and dangerous driving. Ms. Karpa had all of the charges against the client withdrawn. No conviction. No criminal record.

  • 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.

  • R. v. D.T.2015

    The client was charged with driving a motor vehicle while suspended. Ms. Karpa had the charge withdrawn.

  • R. v. T.M.2015

    Client was charged with traffic violations including careless driving which carries significant demerits. Ms. Karpa got the charges reduced so the client would not have any demerits.

  • R. v. R.D.2015

    The client was charged with taking a motor vehicle without consent. Ms. Karpa had the charge withdrawn. No criminal record. No conviction.

  • 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.

  • R. v. L.B.2015

    The client faced a charge of driving of disqualified. The Crown sought a jail sentence for the allegation, given the client'’s breach of a court order. Calgary criminal lawyer Susan Karpa successfully argued against a sentence of jail, and instead the client receive a fine.

  • R. v. B.C.2015

    The client was charged with driving while disqualified (contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada) and driving without insurance (contrary to the Traffic Safety Act). With a thorough review of the file, Ms. Karpa determined that there weren'’t sufficient grounds for the prosecution to continue. Ms. Karpa convinced the Crown to withdraw both charges. No criminal conviction/no criminal record.

  • 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. A.A.2014

    The client was charged with failing to remain at the scene of an accident, obstruction of justice and dangerous driving. Ms. Karpa succeeded in having the allegations reduced from indictable to summary conviction proceedings. Further, pleas were entered to Traffic Safety Act offences (to avoid criminal convictions for those matters) for fines and probation. The client had been facing jail time.

  • R. v. M.A.2014

    The client was initially charged with multiple counts of driving a motor vehicle while disqualified due to previous convictions for impaired driving and driving while disqualified. Ms. Karpa succeeded in arguing that one of the counts should be withdrawn, and a plea was entered to another count of driving while disqualified. Ms. Karpa successfully argued the client should receive a conditional sentence in circumstances where client had multiple related entries on his record and was facing jail. The Judge agreed to grant Ms. Karpa's application for a conditional sentence. No jail.

  • R. v. J.F.2014

    The client faced charges of speeding (50+ km over the limit) and possession large quantity of marihuana (possession pursuant to section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act). Ms. Karpa had the speeding allegation reduced significantly to avoid excessive demerits, and possession of marihuana withdrawn after completion of diversion. No criminal record. No criminal conviction.

  • 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. E.L.2013

    Client was charged with dangerous driving. Charge withdrawn. No conviction/no criminal record.

  • R. v. T.S.2013

    Client received a traffic ticket. Ms. Karpa got the ticket withdrawn.

  • R. v. J.S.2013

    Client charged with fleeing from police, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and his sixth breach of a conditional sentence order. Ms. Karpa managed to have the flight from police and possession of a stolen motor vehicle charges withdrawn.

  • R. v. B.M.2013

    Client was charged with breaches of bail and Traffic Safety Act offences. The serious Traffic Safety Act offences were dropped. The client was sentenced to a minimal fine on the remaining charges.

  • R. v. D.G.2013

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

    DUI
  • R. v. A.T.2013

    Client was charged with several Traffic Safety Act offences. Ms. Karpa got all tickets withdrawn. No convictions, no fines.