• False Creek at night

Our Successes

Driving Charges

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

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Mr. Johnson was able to point to a weakness on the issue of identification and was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser offence of Driving Without a License.
Result: After hearing Mr. Johnson’s submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a fine. No driving prohibition.

R. vs. P.X. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge as laid.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a license. Rather than being sentenced to the mandatory minimum 12 month driving prohibition, our client received a $250 fine. No driving prohibition.

R. vs. K.S. – Vancouver Police Investigation

Charge: Hit and Run.
Issue: Whether our client would be charged with a Criminal Code offence and whether ICBC would breach his insurance policy as a result of his actions.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade police to issue our client a Motor Vehicle Act violation ticket rather than proceed with criminal charges. Mr. Mines was then able to steer our client through an ICBC investigation which concluded without ICBC finding him in breach of his insurance policy, saving him in the range of $10,000.

R. vs. D.C. – Vancouver Traffic Court

Charge: Speeding; Driving without Reasonable Consideration.
Issue: Whether our client had a lawful excuse for driving in the manner he did.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to present medical evidence to the police officer who agreed to drop the Driving without Reasonable Consideration charge and to proceed against our client as the registered owner rather than the driver. Our client was sentenced to a fine but received no driving demerit points rather than the 9 points he was originally facing.

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.