Impaired Driving and Over 80, Refuse Sample

• “Client A”  charged with Impaired Driving and Excess blood alcohol/over 80.  Allegations that client was impaired and over legal limit operating a motor vehicle that was involved in a collision.  Defence counsel Paul Dhaliwal filed a Charter Application alleging a violation of client A’s charter rights.  The honourable Court after hearing the Charter Application stayed both charges against “client A”.  Court agreed with the Defense counsel Paul Dhaliwal that the delay was unreasonable and that client “A” was prejudiced by the delay.

  Client “A” charged with impaired and over 80 excess blood alcohol. Defence counsel Paul Dhaliwal attended court on approximately nine occasions requesting breath room video, breath room video not provided despite numerous requests and attendance at court by counsel.  As a result matter took approximately 16 months to trial, Defence counsel raised Section 11(b) charter Application, and after hearing the Charter Application and submissions from defense counsel Paul Dhaliwal, the honourable Court stayed both charges against client agreeing that his Charter rights were violated.  Client was a businessman who needed vehicle in day to day operation of his business.

  Client “A” charged with impaired driving and over 80 excess blood alcohol.  Client “A” alleged to have operated a motor vehicle on major Highway in an impaired state. Allegation of client “A” almost hitting side barriers and weaving and swerving in lanes.  Further allegations that client was unsteady on feet and stumbling.  Client “A” had hired another lawyer who suggested to client to plead guilty.  Client not wanting to plead guilty then retained Paul Dhaliwal who was successful at trial in defending client “A”.  Defence counsel filed Charter Applications and used the ‘Carter’ defence and through skillful examination and cross examination showed the  indicia of  impairment was in fact, fatigue and due to client’s previous injury..  Client “A” not guilty.

  Client “A” charged with excess blood alcohol over 80.  Allegations that client “A” was operating a motor vehicle, that he was speeding and pulled over by the police.  Police had suspicion of alcohol consumption and asked for ASD test from client”A”.  Defence counsel filed and argued  a Section 10(b) right to counsel Application and the breathalyzer readings were excluded and client “A” found not guilty.

  Client “A” was visiting from another country, while on vacation in Canada was charged with Refuse to Provide Breath Sample -ASD.  Allegation that client “A” was operating a motor vehicle and that the police suspected client “A” of consuming alcohol.  Client “A” plead not guilty.  After thorough cross examination of the Officer in charge/arresting officer the Honourable Judge agreed with Defence counsel Paul Dhaliwal that the Officer did not have the requisite grounds to demand an ASD sample.  Defence counsel’s Paul Dhaliwal’s thorough knowledge of the wording of the demand and the requirements for making an ASD demand were key in the not guilty verdict. 

ROBBERY

• Client”A” charged with Robbery and additional offences.   Offence of Robbery is Indictable offence.  Client “A” pled not guilty.  Police alleged that client”A” was one of numerous individuals who robbed an individual of his wallet.  After skillful cross examination by counsel Paul Dhaliwal of the victim, the honourable Court found client “A” not guilty of serious charge of Robbery as Crown had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Client”A” charged with two counts of Robbery and Assault Causing Bodily Harm.   Allegations that client “A” and another individual Robbed and Assaulted an individual in a hotel. Crown counsel initially seeking custodial (jail) sentence for client”A” on indictable offences of Robbery.  On day one of a two day tria,l before the commencement of trial, Defence counsel Paul Dhaliwal negotiated with the Crown a plea of simple assault with no custody and a sentence of Probation.  Client”A” relieved that he can go on with his life and not face any jail.

DANGEROUS DRIVING

• Client “A” charged with Dangerous Operation of a motor vehicle.  Allegations that client”A” was operating a motorcycle with a passenger on the rear at a excess rate of speed above the legal speed limit.  There were additional allegations that client”A” was racing with another motorcycle and that there was some weaving in and out of traffic.  Client pled not guilty.  Defence Counsel Paul Dhaliwal thoroughly cross examined thepolice officer as to his observations and after trial client found not guilty.

  Client”A” charged with numerous offences including Excess blood alcohol over 80, Dangerous Driving, Obstruct Police and Breach of Recog.  Defence Counsel Paul Dhaliwal attended court and secured releases of client on Judicial interim release bail.  After numerous court appearances and thorough review of disclosure, Defence counsel Paul Dhaliwal was able to negotiate the withdraw of all of the Criminal charges against client “A”.

ASSAULT

• Client”A” was charged with Domestic Assault.  Allegations that Client ”A” assaulted wife after having been out drinking.  Allegations by wife that client”A” assaulted her. Client “A” pleads not guilty. Defence counsel Paul Dhaliwal was able to elicit evidence from the Officer that attended the scene to the fact that he did not observe any marks on the victims face, nor was her hair out of place, nor was there any signs of a struggle at the residence.  Client “A” found not guilty after trial.

  Client”A” was charged with Assault.  As to allegations that the client was drinking and assaulted a cab driver.  After reviewing disclosure, Defence Counsel Paul Dhaliwal met with Crown and negotiated Diversion for client and the charges were withdrawn.

MISCHIEF TO PROPERTY

• Client “A” charged with mischief to property.  Client”A” had no record.  Client retained counsel Paul Dhaliwal to defend him.  Defence counsel Paul Dhaliwal, conducted meetings with the Crown and the charges were ultimately withdrawn. 

DRUG CHARGES

• Client “A” charged with conspiracy to import “Schedule 1" drug, Possession for Purposes of Trafficking, Importing drugs to Canada.   Client “A” charged with the offences and held for bail hearing.  After meeting with Federal Prosecutor, counsel Paul Dhaliwal secures release of client “A”.

  Client “A” charged with possession of drugs (ecstacy).  Client”A” was a  university student with a bright future. Client fails to attend court and bench warrant issued.  Client retains counsel Paul Dhaliwal who negotiated the withdraw of the Fail to Appear charge and the Diversion of the Drug possession charge,  after client”A” completed community service, drug possession charges are stayed. 

  Client”A” charged with drug possession of cocaine. Client “A” hired counsel Paul Dhaliwal.  Counsel is well prepared at Judicial pre trial and client enters a plea to which the client was granted a conditional discharge without having a conviction on his record.

CRIMINAL LAW - Frequently Asked Questions

Do the Police have a right to check my vehicle upon being stopped?

Do the police have a right to enter a dwelling house to make an arrest?

If I am stopped by the police, do I have to provide the police with a sample of my breath?

If I am stopped by the police and am asked to provide an ASD sample, do I have the right to speak to a lawyer before providing the sample of my breath?

What is meant by voluntary statement?

If I have provided a sample of my breath and my readings are above the legal limit, is there still a defence for me?