Charges Dismissed Due to Insufficient Evidence
Impaired driving charges can feel overwhelming, especially when police point to poor driving and alcohol consumption. However, the law requires more than suspicion. The Crown Attorney must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that alcohol impaired the accused’s ability to drive.
If the evidence does not clearly establish impairment, the charge cannot succeed. In many cases, this becomes the central issue at trial and a key focus of a strong defence strategy.
This case highlights two critical problems that often arise in impaired driving prosecutions:
- a lack of strong and consistent signs of impairment
- evidence that raises alternative explanations for poor driving
These weaknesses matter because the burden of proof always rests on the Crown. The accused does not have to prove anything. Instead, the defence focuses on testing the evidence, exposing gaps, and creating reasonable doubt.
Facts of the Case
In August of 2010 Police Constable Kevin Bolduc was driving an unmarked police car and with him were two other plainclothes officers. It was 414am and the officers were returning to the police station after having completed an unrelated assignment.
As the officers approached a red light northbound on Victoria Park Avenue, Constable Bolduc noticed the accused sitting behind the driver’s seat of his vehicle stopped a green traffic light. The accused’s vehicle did not proceed for approximately 20 seconds on the green light, but eventually the accused turned northbound at a high rate of speed.
The accused’s vehicle made a very wide turn and almost struck some constructions pylons. Constable Bolduc testified that driving was “a little odd”.Constable Bolduc followed the accused’s vehicle northbound on Victoria Park.
The road narrowed from 2 lanes to one lane, there was a curve and a large hill. As the vehicles approached the next intersection, the accused’s vehicle accelerated quickly and began swerving – crossing from the northbound lanes into the southbound lane.
The officer estimated the accused’s vehicle was traveling more that 95 km/hour in a posted 60 km/hour zone. At the crest of the hill, the accused’s vehicle slowed to approximately 30km/hour so the officers were able to catchup.
As the accused’s vehicle approached the intersection at St. Clair Avenue, Constable Bolduc testified the accused swerved and almost hit the median in the center of the road.
The officer radioed for another police car and then he saw the accused’s vehicle drift two or three times across the center line into oncoming traffic. Constable Bolduc estimated the accused’s speed fluctuated between 40-80km/hour in a 60 km/hour zone.
At the light at O’Connor and Victoria Park, Constable Bolduc pulled parallel to the accused’s car. Police Constable Ryan D’Souza, who was seated in the rear, identified himself to the accused through the open window showing his police badge. The officer asked the accused to pull over.
All three officers including Sgt. Joe Capizzo, who was seated in the front east, said the accused looked over to the with his eyes glazed. The accused was eating a hamburger. Two officers testified the accused nodded as if agreeing to pull over. However, the accused waited until the red light turned green and proceeded to driver northbound another 1/2 kilometer before turning left onto a side street.
By this time, a marked police cruiser with emergency equipment pulled up behind the unmarked police car. The accused finally stopped his vehicle. Sgt Capizzo approached the driver’s side window and he said he smelled the strong odour of men’s cologne or perfume. The sergeant described it as a fresh scent of Cologne like a fragrance that had been worn for a while. Constable Bolduc described the strength as “overwhelming”.
The accused was asked to step out of the vehicle, which he did. The officers noticed the accused’s eyes were bloodshot and glossy. Constable Bolduc testified that when the accused moved away from his vehicle, the smell of cologne dissipated and he could smell the odour of alcohol coming from the accused’s breath.
The accused provide the police officers his driver’s license and supporting documents. Constable Bolduc testified GM spoke heavily accented English, but the accused appeared to understand their directions and was compliant. During their conversation, the accused admitted he had had “two beers” to drink and he begged the officers not to charge him.
During cross examination, all three officers agreed the accused’s speech was not slurred; he responded appropriately to the officer’s directions and questions; as well his motor skill were normal and he was able to produce the documents upon demand. Constable Bolduc and Sgt. Capizzo agreed the accused was not unsteady on his feet although Constable D’Souza said the accused was “very unsteady” on his feet – swaying side to side and shifting his weight back and forth.
Officer D’Souza did not have direct contact with the accused because his job on scene was to instruct the uniform police officers. Constable Bolduc in describing the accused driving, agreed that Victoria Park was tricky to maneuver because of road construction at the corner where the accused was first seen by the police.
He also agreed that parts of northbound Victoria Park were winding and fairly hilly. All of the officers agree that eating food while driving can be a slight distraction although Constable D’Souza said when he had eaten and driven, he had not crossed lanes into oncoming traffic.
Constable Bolduc agreed the strong smell of fragrance coming from he accused’s vehicle could have been from an air freshener. All three officers testified that based on their observations the accused ‘s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol.
Issues at Trial
The central issue at trial was whether the Crown Attorney could prove that the accused’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol. While there was evidence of alcohol consumption and poor driving, that alone was not enough to secure a conviction.
The court focused on several key issues:
- whether the driving behaviour clearly showed impairment caused by alcohol
- if the accused displayed reliable physical signs of impairment
- the consistency and reliability of the police observations
- whether alternative explanations could account for the driving
These issues were critical because the Crown must prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt. Any uncertainty in the evidence, including conflicting observations or reasonable alternative explanations, can prevent a conviction.
When these factors were considered together, they created reasonable doubt about whether the accused’s ability to drive was actually impaired by alcohol.
Judge’s Decision
The trial judge found that the Crown Attorney did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol. While there was evidence of alcohol consumption and concerning driving, the court was not satisfied that alcohol was the cause of the behaviour.
The judge placed significant weight on the lack of clear and consistent physical signs of impairment. The accused’s speech was not slurred, he was responsive to police, and there was conflicting evidence about his balance and coordination.
In addition, the court accepted that other factors, including road conditions and possible distraction, could have contributed to the driving. When all of the evidence was considered together, these issues raised a reasonable doubt.
As a result, the accused was found not guilty and the impaired driving charge was dismissed.
Experienced Criminal Defence
Charitsis Law, Impaired Driving Defence Team
Experience counts in criminal defence. Knowing the court system, the Crown Attorney’s, police, and judges can have a serious impact on how your case proceeds. The reputation and experience of your criminal defence lawyer matters and can influence how your case is handled from the start.
The courts recognize criminal lawyers who prepare thoroughly, challenge the evidence, and present strong and effective defence arguments.
At Charitsis Law, our team of DUI lawyers and criminal defence professionals focuses on reviewing the evidence, guiding you through the court process, and building a clear defence strategy tailored to your case.
Call 647-930-0200 to speak with a criminal defence lawyer at Charitsis Law, and lets just have a conversation about what happened and how we can help you.
Our legal team has years of experience helping individuals facing criminal charges across Ontario. We work together to identify weaknesses in the Crown’s case and take the steps needed to have charges withdrawn or dismissed whenever possible.
