Charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm, Over 80 causing bodily harm, Driving with No Insurance
Charter issues: Reasonable Grounds, Right to Silence, Right to Counsel,
Trial Issues: continuity of blood sample, Reliability of BAC readings, causation of bodily harm
Likely Sentence if Convicted after Trial: 9-12 months jail, $5,000-7,000 in fines for driving with no insurance, and a 2 year driving prohibition with no eligibility for Ontario’s interlock program.
Resolution: Plea of guilt to impaired operation for a $2000 fine, 18 month driving prohibition with eligibility for interlock. Bodily Harm charges withdrawn, no insurance withdrawn
R. v. J.P.
Charge: Domestic Assault, Criminal Harassment
Resolution discussions with the Crown prior to first court date
Abuse of process application – charter s. 7
Crown advised would withdraw charges on next court date but then reneged on their work.
Crown forces the matter to trial instead of holding up its end of the bargain
Crown maintained they never advised would withdraw
OPP testify that Crown asked them to advise JP that the charges would be withdrawn
Crown elected not to call any evidence
Ruling: Crown abused the criminal justice process
Result: Charges withdrawn by Crown
R. v. L.S.
Charge: Assault (domestic)
Credibility (he said, she said) at issue.
Raised doubt in complainant’s credibility by showing that she concocted the assault allegations so that she could get LS out of the house
R. v. H.G. (D.)
Charges: Robbery, use intimidation firearm, disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence
Bail Hearing: Crown evidence weak, Crown admits evidence wanting but investigation continues, will get stronger
No prior record
Released to surety
Crown makes very attractive offer
H.G.(D.) turns down offer
Matter proceeds down trial path
Prior to trial, Crown withdraws realizing that they do not have a reasonable prospect of conviction
R. v. C.M.
1st Set of Charges: sexual assault, unlawfully in a dwelling x2
2nd Set of Charges: sexual assault
3rd Set of Charges: over 80, breach of recognizance
On the 1st set of charges, Carlos Da Cruz cross-examined the complainant, revealing that she omitted key information from the police with respect to prior sexual incidents with the accused and that the complainant was not a credible or reliable witness.
Result: Not guilty of sexual assault, conditional discharge on unlawfully in a dwelling x2. The accused left with no criminal record that day.
On the 2nd set of charges, the accused was found guilty after trial. It was a close case with the Judge preferring the evidence of the complainant relying on one “telling” piece of evidence. Carlos Da Cruz successfully argued for a conditional discharge, despite already having been conditionally discharged in the past.
On the 3rd set of charges, the Over 80 and breach was withdrawn after the judicial pre-trial.
Total result: No criminal record on any set of charges. No SOIRA registration or even Ontario’s Christopher’s Law.
R. v. D.S.
Charge: Driving While Disqualified
Crown proved the prohibition order and that the accused was driving while the prohibition order was in force
Crown failed to prove that the sentencing court brought home the meaning of s. 260 to the accused
Accused testified that he was not advised of s. 260, was rushed through the court administrative process, and was not aware of the grave consequences for conducting the prohibited act
R. v. R.M.
Charge: Fail to Stop (Criminal)
Credibility case. Crown alleged a prior criminal record which the accused disagreed in part. The Crown sought an adjournment in order to prove the prior record and it was granted. Upon returning to court, the Crown could not prove the accused’s prior record which the trial judge attributed to the credibility of the accused.
Result: Not guilty
R v. J.T.
Charges: Over 80, Possession of Schedule I substance (Cocaine)
Police found the accused in a car with the interior lights on, with friends, outside a bar after hours, with what appeared to be cocaine in plain view. Upon arrest for cocaine, the officer detected an odour of alcohol on the accused and he was sitting in the driver’s seat. Following a roadside breath demand, the accused was charged with Over 80. At trial, the officer’s credibility was in question as his notes claimed the engine was running because he saw the keys in the ignition and that he reached in and turned the ignition off. During cross-examination by Carlos Da Cruz it was shown that the vehicle in question used a push-to-start button and that there was no ignition slot for a traditional key, and that the only reason for believing the engine was on was because the officer saw lights on, but not the headlights of the car. The officer also used a roadside device which was outside its calibration period and therefore unreliable and inaccurate. With respect to the cocaine charge, the Crown relied on a roadside test kit as evidence of the substance claimed to be cocaine. Carlos Da Cruz successfully argued that the drug detection method is crude and unreliable and that the law requires testing from Health Canada.
Result: All charges dismissed
R. v. G.B.
Charged with over 80 and impaired
Observed speeding along a residential road. A traffic stop was conducted and a roadside demand was made for breath sample. The roadside device was outside its tolerances and there were no other indicia of impairment present at the roadside. Carlos Da Cruz applied for a remedy for breach of the accused’s Charter rights. Despite vigorous challenge from the crown, the application was granted and the breath readings were excluded.
Result: Over 80 dismissed, Not guilty on impaired driving
R. v. S.E.
Charges: Over 80 and Impaired
Crown took 12.5 months to bring this matter to trial.
Carlos successfully argued that the institutional delay in this case violated the accused’s right to be tried within a reasonable time.
Result: Application granted, charges stayed
R. v. A.V.
A credibility case between the accused and the complainant. The complainant was an ex-boyfriend of the accused. At trial, the complainant agreed that he was the instigator, that he forcibly confined the accused, ripped jewelry off of her while forcibly confining her, and asked her to hit him back. The accused testified further that she did hit him in response to his actions. Carlos successfully argued that the complainant had consented to being hit and that further prosecution of the accused is contrary to the public interest.
Result: the court did not comment on the public interest, but found that consent was made out. Accused found not guilty.
R. v. C.G.
Charges: Over 80 and Impaired
Observed speeding around a bend and into a driveway. Officer makes breath demand and accused fails. At trial, accused proven to have had breath readings of 240 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood. The accused led expert evidence that he had an acid reflux disease which produced spurious results in an intoxilyzer thereby raising into doubt the results of the intoxilyzer.
No further evidence was led about impairment besides prior consumption. Without further evidence on the effects of consumption and the accused testified that he was not speeding, a doubt was raised.
Result: Not guilty on all charges
R. v. S.T.
Charges: Over 80 and Impaired
Several witnesses testified that they observed the accused drive a vehicle and upon entering a driveway, scraped another car that was in the driveway. The accused testified that he was not drinking at the time of the scrape of the vehicle.
Crown could not prove that the time of drinking and the time of the accident was as a result of impairment by alcohol or that he was Over 80
Result: Not guilty of Over 80 or Impaired
R. v. D.C.
Charges: Over 80 and Impaired
Carlos Da Cruz successfully argued that there was excessive delay in bringing the matter to trial.
Result: charges stayed
R. v. K.K.
Charge: Sexual Assault
Complainant testified that she heard the accused ask her to engage in sexual activity but no evidence of actual touching. The accused did not testify. Carlos Da Cruz specifically pointed out that the complainant nor any of her witnesses provided any evidence that the accused applied any force or otherwise threatened to touch the complainant.
Without experience on being charged criminally, i was fortuned to to came across Carlos DaCruz barrister and solicitor......Mr. Carlos DaCruz was not pretensions, glamours or insinuative on his practice of law, he was assertive and patient with my upset attitude to be charged with failing to provide a breath sample.
i had trial today as scheduled but it was not resolved because crown asked for an adjournment on this 15 months old case of mine.
My point being, MY CASE STILL NOT RESOLVED BUT I COULD NOT EVER EXPECT A MORE PROFESSIONAL, ASSERTIVE, GROUNDED DEFENSE....I STRONGLY RECOMMEND MR CARLOS DACRUZ