• False Creek at night

Our Successes

Driving Charges

E.S. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

Charge: 90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police officer had reasonable grounds to demand the breath sample that our client refused to provide.
Result: The adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines’ submissions that the officer did not have objectively reasonable grounds to make the demand and, accordingly, found that our client was entitled to refuse providing the breath sample. The 90 day driving prohibition and 30 day vehicle impoundment were revoked and our client was permitted to resume driving.

R. vs. N.N. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with this prosecution which carries a minimum mandatory 12 month driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Johnson persuaded Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a driver’s license. Our client received a $400 fine and a 4 month driving prohibition.

A.K. vs. Superintendent of British Columbia

Charge: 90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP).
Issue: Whether the investigating officer could prove that our client had care or control of the parked vehicle he was found sleeping in.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to successfully persuade the adjudicator that our client was not a “driver” within the Motor Vehicle Act definition. Our client’s driving prohibition was overturned, his car was released and all fees were returned, allowing him to resume driving.

R. vs. T.X. – Richmond RCMP Investigation

Charge: Failing to Remain at the Scene of an Accident.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence for police to charge our client.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the investigation without our client incriminating himself. No charges were recommended.

R. vs. M.S. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persude Crown Counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program and to enter a stay of proceedings upon compltion. No criminal record.

R.M. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

Charge: 90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the investgating officer could prove that our client was a “driver” within the Motor Vehicle Act, and whether our client refused a lawful breath demand.
Result: Driving prohibition revoked. After conidering Mr. Mines’ submissions, the adjudicator concluded that our client was not a “driver” within the MVA definition. All fees refunded to our client. Our client was permitted to resume driving. No conviction. No record.

R. vs. J.S. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge given the circumstances of the case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a valid driver’s license. Rather than the mandatory minimun 12 month driving prohibition, our client received a driving prohibition of only one month.

R. vs. R.M. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Driving Without Due Care and attention.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client, who was not found in the vehicle, was actually the driver.
Result: The charge was dismissed prior to the commencement of trial. No conviction. No driving prohibition.

Rvs. G.C. – Vancouver Traffic Court

Charge: Failing to Obey a Traffic Control Device.
Issue: Whether our client’s Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was breached.
Result: Upon filing the required Notice of our Charter Application, Crown counsel agreed with Mr. Johnson’s submissions and entered a stay of proceedings. No conviction. No driving prohibition.

R. vs. A.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Impaired Driving; Possession of Controlled Substance.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps that our client had taken, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able tp persuade Crown counsel to stay the two criminal charges and proceed on the lesser Motor Vehicle Act charge of Driving Without Sue Care and Attention. Our client was sentenced to a fine and a driving prohibition. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.S. – Port Coquitlam provincial Court

Charge: Driving while Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a license. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court imposed a $1000 fine rather than the minimum mandatory 12 month driving prohibition that our client was facing.

R. vs. J.O. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Impaired Driving; Over .08.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution in this case which involved an accident.
Result: Based on our client’s medical issues and the rehabilitative steps he had taken, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on a lesser charge under the Motor Vehicle Act. Our client received a fine and a 15 month driving prohibition but no criminal record.