Impaired Driving Charge Dismissed After Misleading Police Testimony

Challenge

The defence raised two key Charter concerns. First, whether Mr. M’s right to consult counsel of choice had been properly respected. Second, whether misleading testimony from the arresting officer compromised his right to a fair trial.

After arriving at the station, Mr. M chose to consult with a trusted friend who was a licensed paralegal rather than a lawyer. The Crown argued that he had been given the opportunity to speak with counsel and proceeded voluntarily. More significantly, during testimony and cross-examination, the arresting officer provided contradictory statements about:

The nature of the RIDE stop The circumstances leading to the roadside screening His understanding of whether Mr. M had spoken with a lawyer

Our Process

01 Planning the case We carefully reviewed all disclosure, including officer notes, body camera records, and breathalyzer documentation. Charter compliance was examined line by line. 02 Evaluating situation We assessed whether Mr. M’s right to counsel had been meaningfully exercised and whether the officer’s testimony could withstand scrutiny under cross-examination. 03 Challenging the Evidence in Court During trial, we exposed contradictions in the officer’s evidence and highlighted inconsistencies regarding the RIDE stop and consultation with counsel. 04 Establishing Fair Trial Concerns We argued that misleading testimony from a person in authority undermines the truth-seeking function of the justice system and breaches an accused’s right to a fair trial.

Result

The court determined that while Mr. M had expressed satisfaction with the advice he received before providing breath samples, the officer’s misleading testimony raised serious concerns about trial fairness.

Justice D emphasized that few actions undermine the integrity of the justice system more than misleading testimony from someone in authority.

As a result, the breathalyzer evidence was excluded. Without that key evidence, the Crown could not proceed. Mr. M was acquitted of all impaired driving charges.