The Queen vs. The Defendant

Cases tagged as Dangerous Driving

Cases in 2021

  • R. v. D.K.2021

    The client was charged with assault with a weapon, mischief, and multiple traffic tickets. After early case resolution discussions with the Crown, the client was approved and accepted into the Alternative Measures Program. The charges and tickets were withdrawn upon completion of the program. The client was left with no criminal record and no convictions for any of the criminal charges. The traffic tickets were also withdrawn.

  • 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.

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 The charge of refusal to provide a sample of breath was withdrawn.

  • 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.

  • 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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. D.T.2018

    The client was charged with assault, mischief, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident. The allegations were serious and arose in a domestic situation. I approached the crown with respect to resolution of the matter, and after much negotiating, the crown ultimately agreed to stay the charge.

  • R. v. S.L.2018

    The client was charged with possession of stolen property, dangerous driving, failing to stop vehicle and failing to comply. The client was further charged in a different jurisdiction for theft of a motor vehicle, failing to appear and failing to comply. The client pleaded not guilty to the possession of stolen property et al charges and they were set down for trial. At trial her matters from both jurisdictions were before the court. The client pleaded guilty to an amended charge of possession of stolen property under $5000 and all the rest were withdrawn. As the client was in custody at the time of trial, the client received time served.

  • 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Cases in 2017

  • R. v. B.O.2017

    The client was charged with assault. The allegation was that of road rage. In the end, the matter was referred to the alternative measure program. The charge was withdrawn when the client successfully completed the requirements of the program. The consequences if the client had not had me negotiate for the program would have been detrimental to the client'’s ability to work.

  • R. v. J.S.2017

    The client was charged with several offences, including possession over $5000, possession under $5000, possessing a break-in instrument, possessing a weapon, trafficking in property, driving disqualified, taking a motor vehicle without consent, failing to appear and failing to comply. The client plead guilty to several charges and the remaining ones were withdrawn. The client received a sentence of 9 months global, less pre-trial custody. That left the client with only a few months to serve. The client had a lengthy record for similar offences and would have faced a much higher sentence, but I was able to negotiate a reduced sentence.

  • 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. 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. 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.

Cases in 2016

  • R. v. K.C.2016

    The client was charged with assault in a 'road rage'” type dispute. A conviction would have had a serious impact upon the client's employment. Ms. Karpa managed to secure a withdrawal of the matter. No criminal conviction/no criminal record. The client'’s employment was unaffected.

  • 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. 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. K.D.2016

    The client was charged with theft of a motor vehicle contrary to section 333.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The matter involved a serious accident after the vehicle was stolen. Ms. Karpa argued for a conditional discharge, and it was granted by the court. No conviction entered.

Cases in 2015

  • 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.

Cases in 2014

  • 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. 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.

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. 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. A.T.2013

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