1. EXPERIENCE


R. v. D.

  1. D. was charged with Driving Over 0.08 and Impaired Driving. Driving home after the bar she hit two pylons, which became lodged under her car.  She wasn’t able to pull them out so she decided to drive home.  The police were called when two parking enforcement officers saw D. driving with the large pylons stuck under her vehicle.   When they stopped her, they smelled alcohol on her breath and she admitted to having a drink about an 1.5 hours earlier.  The officer demanded that she blow into a roadside screening device and she registered a “fail”.  The officer then arrested her for Driving Over 0.08.  She was taken back to the police station where  her Intoxilyzer readings were over the legal limit and she was charged with Driving Over 0.08 and Impaired Driving.   The Crown was not able to prove that the breath samples were taken within 2 hours of the alleged offence.  As a result, they were not entitled to rely upon the presumption that her blood alcohol level was over 0.08 at the time of driving.  Instead they relied on the affidavit of a qualified toxicologist which indicated that her blood alcohol level at the time of driving would have been between 0.140 and 0.180.   The defence position was that the Crown could not disprove “bolus” drinking (the consumption of large quantities of alcohol shortly before driving.  The trial judge found D. “NOT GUILTY” of Driving Over 0.08 and Impaired Driving for other reasons.


R. v. B.

  1. B. was charged with Refuse to Blow and Impaired Driving.   The police stopped him because he stopped over the white line at a stop light.  He admitted to having a drink before driving and the police demanded that he provide a sample of his breath into a roadside screening device. They claimed that he refused. The defence position was that english was not B.’s first language and he had difficulty understanding the demand. The police said he understood everything they said to him and charged him with Refuse to Blow and Impaired Driving.  The Crown agreed to WITHDRAW both charges.


R. v. C.

  1. C. was charged with Dangerous Driving, Possession of Stolen Property, Resisting Arrest.  The police were conducting a routine speed trap when a stolen SUV accelerated and drove through the stop nearly striking one of the officers.  The police identified C. as the sole occupant and driver of the vehicle.  When they caught up to the vehicle it was parked and C. was running through the parking lot about 10 meters behind the vehicle.  At the first trial the jury was hung and could not come to a decision.  In the second jury trial C. was found ‘guilty’.  On appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the convictions and STAYED the proceedings.  A stay of proceedings tantamount to an acquittal.


R. v. F.

  1. F. was charged with Impaired Driving and Possession of Marijuana.  F. was stopped for speeding when he driving home from a tree cutting job.  He had a long week at work and was over-tired.  The police searched his car and found marijuana. They claimed that his eyes were blood shot and he was slurring his speech so they charged him with Impaired Operation. After negotiation on the morning of trial the Crown agreed to WITHDRAW both charges. 


R. v. Q.

  1. Q. was charged with Refuse to Blow. He was stopped late at night in a R.I.D.E. program. The officer demanded that he blow into roadside screening device.  The officer alleged that Q. refused to blow into the device without any reasonable excuse. Q. testified that he just wanted to speak to a lawyer to find out his rights before he blew. He was just confused and wanted clarification from a lawyer before he provided his breath sample.  The trial judge found him NOT GUILTY of Refusing to Blow.


R. v. V.

  1. V. was charged with Driving Over 0.08.  V. was driving home from a Christmas party when he was randomly stopped by the police.  The police smelled alcohol on his breath and he admitted to drinking before driving.  They made a demand that he provide a sample of his breath.  His Intoxilyzer readings were 0.110.  After negotiation on the morning of trial the Crown agreed to WITHDRAW the charge in exchange for a plea to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act.


R. v. N.

  1. N. was charged with Impaired Operation, and Over 0.08.  N. was pulled over because the police suspected that he was driving with stolen plates.  They searched the car and found open alcohol.  They also smelled alcohol on N.’s breath and noticed blood shot eyes, slurred speech, and unsteadiness on his feet, and made a demand to blow into a roadside screening device.  During cross-examination Mr. Gorham was able to establish that the police wasted time with unnecessary tasks between the time of arrest and taking the samples.  As a result, The trial judge found him NOT GUILTY of Impaired Operation and Driving Over 0.08.


R. v. X.

  1. X. was charged with Driving Over 0.08. He was stopped during a random R.I.D.E check.  The police smelled alcohol on his breath and noticed visible signs of drinking.  He registered a “fail” after blowing into the roadside screening device and was arrested for Driving Over 0.08.  His Intoxilyzer readings were .100.  After negotiation the Crown agreed to WITHDRAW the charge because 

  2. X.‘s readings were close to the legal limit  and because he had never been charged in the past. 



All information is true but the names are changed to protect the confidentiality of former clients.


NATHAN GORHAM 
TORONTO DEFENCE LAWYER
  1. TORONTO | DRINKING AND DRIVING | LAWYER

  2. Drinking and Driving (Impaired Operation, Over 0.08, Refuse to Blow), Dangerous Driving, Fail to Remain


Nathan Gorham is a criminal lawyer in Toronto who defends Impaired/Over 0.08 BAC (sometimes referred to as DUI or DWI), Refuse to Blow,  Dangerous Driving, Drive Under Suspension and other driving charges in Toronto, Brampton, Newmarket, or Whitby.  He is one of the founding partners at R.O.R.R.G.A. LLP, which is the largest criminal defence law firm in Toronto.   Below you will find some of Nathan Gorham’s experience defending driving charges. 


Impaired Driving requires that the Crown prove that a defendant operated a motor vehicle while his/her ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by drug or alcohol.  Driving over 0.08 BAC requires that Crown prove that a defendant operated or had care and control of a motor vehicle while his/her blood alcohol concentration exceeded 0.08.  Refusing to blow requires that the Crown prove that the defendant refused to provide a sample of his/her breath following a lawful demand to provide a sample.  The potential penalties for all three offences are the same and include mandatory fines and driving prohibitions.


Dangerous Driving requires that the Crown prove that a defendant operated a motor vehicle in a dangerous manner; meaning a standard of conduct that was a marked departure from conduct of a reasonable driver.


  1. CONTACT


tel: 416.410.4814

fax: 416.598.3384

office: 416.598.1811

36 Lombard Street, Suite 100

Toronto, ON, M5C 2X3

gorham@criminaltriallawyers.ca

MAIN PAGE   -   RECENT SUCCESSES   -   FEES   -   CONSULTATIONS   -   LEGAL RESOURCES   -   ABOUT MR. GORHAM

TORONTO MURDER LAWYER   -   TORONTO DRINKING AND DRIVING LAWYER   -   TORONTO DOMESTIC ASSAULT LAWYER   - TORONTO SEXUAL ASSAULT LAWYER   -   TORONTO THEFT LAWYER  -   TORONTO DRUG LAWYER   -   TORONTO FIREARM LAWYER   -   TORONTO APPEAL LAWYER
  BRAMPTON CRIMINAL LAWYER   -   OSHAWA CRIMINAL LAWYER   -   NEWMARKET CRIMINAL LAWYER

Nathan Gorham - Toronto Criminal Lawyer - 2011 - SitemapHome.htmlRecent_successes_main_page.htmlFees.htmlConsultations.htmlAbout.htmlToronto_Murder_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Domestic_Assault_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Sexual_Assault_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Sexual_Assault_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Theft_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Drug_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Firearms_Lawyer.htmlBrampton_Criminal_Lawyer2.htmlBrampton_Criminal_Lawyer2.htmlBrampton_Criminal_Lawyer2.htmlshapeimage_6_link_0shapeimage_6_link_1shapeimage_6_link_2shapeimage_6_link_3shapeimage_6_link_4shapeimage_6_link_5shapeimage_6_link_6shapeimage_6_link_7shapeimage_6_link_8shapeimage_6_link_9shapeimage_6_link_10shapeimage_6_link_11shapeimage_6_link_12shapeimage_6_link_13shapeimage_6_link_14shapeimage_6_link_15shapeimage_6_link_16