Client was out boating with her boyfriend and consumed alcohol while on the water. Client was questioned by police upon docking her boat and required to provide a breath sample into an Approved Screening Device. Client’s boyfriend told her not to cooperate with police and not to provide a breath sample. The client listened to her boyfriend and refused to blow into the ASD and was criminally charged with refusing to provide a breath sample. Client had no criminal record and was a teacher and mother. There were no Charter breaches or mistakes made in the course of the police investigation and no substantive defence to the charge.
Driving Offence Cases
Client was charged with Impaired driving and refusing to provide a blood sample pursuant to a blood demand. Client had crashed into a trailer and failed the roadside breathalyzer. Client was brought to hospital due to his level of intoxication and injuries flowing from the accident and police obtained a search warrant authorizing a blood demand. Ms. Forhan identified a Charter breaches arising out the officer’s delay in providing the client access to counsel as well as attacked the Information to Obtain [ITO] used to obtain the warrant.
On the hearing date, the Court denied the defendant’s application for an adjournment, the defendant pleaded guilty and the matter was ordered to return for sentencing. Before the sentencing hearing, the defendant paid the fine amount set out on his violation ticket, the matter was struck from the court list, and the offence was recorded on the defendant’s driving record. The Traffic Court Judge set aside the paid fine and summoned the offender to a sentencing hearing and ordered a 90-day driving prohibition in addition to fine. Cathryn Moore was retained for the sentencing appeal. She successfully argued that the Traffic Court erred in ordering a driving prohibition because, after a guilty plea, a Traffic Court is without jurisdiction to order a driving prohibition above and beyond the violation ticket amount.
Client was located asleep in his vehicle after he had driven while impaired. Upon police arrival, it was apparent he had vomited on himself and he was disoriented and confused. The client’s vehicle was inoperable and could not be started. Ms. Forhan recognized this as a triable issue and contacted the police officer directly and obtained a statement from her confirming the vehicle could not be turned on. After reviewing the disclosure, Ms. Forhan also identified a s. 10(b) Charter breach issue [delayed access to legal counsel].
Accused driver, 25-year-old female, crossed over the centre line of the road into oncoming traffic in a school zone and hit a vehicle carrying mother and her 16-year-old son (victims). Victims both suffered injuries — Accused’s blood alcohol concentration was more than four times legal limit. Accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm.
Meghan Forhan was hired to conduct a trial for a client that was accused of Driving Without Due Care or Attention. The Court found that the manner of driving was careless, however Meghan Forhan won the case by making a no evidence motion alleging that the police had failed to call evidence during trial to prove the identification of the accused. The Police Officer running the trial had pointed to Meghan Forhan’s client when he asked the first civilian witness if that was the accused – this identification was struck from the record due to the improper indication made by the officer in court. Meghan Forhan also successfully got the second civilian witness to admit after an unrelenting cross examination that, despite testifying moments ago that she could identify the accused, that she “was not 100% sure” anymore.
Accused client arrested for impaired driving and over 0.08 after a high speed collision with another vehicle. Client blew 0.14 mg% and 0.13 mg%, and confessed to driving while impaired to the arresting officer.
The accused was driving a friend’s car and attempted to overtake a slower vehicle on Vancouver’s Marine Drive. Although there was a broken white line, a rise in the roadway effectively obscured the view of the accused in respect to oncoming traffic. When an oncoming vehicle appeared, the accused attempted to return to the right lane, lost control, and caused a serious accident.
The evidence presented by the Crown was that the accused was observed speeding and weaving in and out of traffic before ultimately losing control and striking a vehicle in oncoming traffic.
The Richmond RCMP pulled over the accused after a witness reported a drunk driver. The police officer took a sample of the accused into an approved screening device, resulting in a “fail” reading. The accused was arrested and provided two more breath samples at the police station, both well in excess of the legal limit.
The accused was speeding and swerving in and out of traffic and eventually the accused was in a motor vehicle accident. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. The first trial date was cancelled due to lack of court time. A total of 14 months passed from the time that the charges were approved to the second trial date.
The accused was pulled over for speeding. There was an odour of liquor on the breath of the accused. The accused was detained between 8 to 11 minutes before the breath demand was made.