Selected Cases

C.L was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08 after being found unconscious in a vehicle on the side of the road. The case involved a seizure of bodily evidence using a blood demand. After discussions with the Crown about the Charter violations that occurred when C.L’s blood was seized, the matter was stayed.

M.A. was pulled over by the police and charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over 08. The matter was withdrawn within a month.

H.S. was charged with impaired driving and driving with an alcohol level over .08. After receiving initial disclosure, Mr. McKay pushed for video evidence both from the scene and the police station. Rather than disclose the requested material, the Crown stayed the proceedings.

S.A. was charged with impairment by drug after being involved in a serious traffic accident. Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg filed a Charter notice which highlighted critical deficiencies in the Crown’s case. Specifically, Mr. McKay challenged the grounds for arrest and the manner in which the accused was compelled to submit to a drug evaluation. He also argued S.A.’s right to counsel had been breached. After some further discussion with the prosecutor, the case was withdrawn.

A.R. was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08 after being stopped at Calgary Police Checkstop. Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg filed a Charter notice alleging a breach of A.R.’s right to counsel and the matter was stayed by the Crown prior to trial.

The client was on a CPS watch list and charged with driving while prohibited due to an impaired conviction within days of each other. The Crown mandate for such offences is to ask for jail for even one such allegation. Through effective negotiations with the Crown in the face of a seemingly strong case on both counts, McKay Criminal Defence successfully had the more serious allegation dropped, and the client was given a nominal fine instead of a term of imprisonment.

The client was charged with impaired driving offences and mischief. Although the case appeared to be relatively strong, in his pre-trial applications, Counsel was able to raise significant issues with respect to the timing of various demands, and other intricate evidentiary issues that ultimately led to the withdrawal of the charges before trial. The client was found NOT GUILTY.

D.K. was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08 after a traffic stop. Mr. McKay filed a Charter motion alleging a breach of D.K.’s section 10(b) Charter right to counsel. The Crown agreed to withdraw all of the charges without having to proceed to trial.

R.L. was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08 after a traffic stop. Mr. McKay filed a Charter motion alleging a breach of R.L.’s section 8 Charter right to counsel. The Crown agreed to withdraw all of the charges prior to trial.

E.A. was charged with impaired driving, driving with a blood alcohol level over .08, hit and run after E.A. was located by HAWCS helicopter after an accident.  Mr. McKay filed a Charter motion alleging a breach of E.A.’s section 10(b) Charter right to counsel. On the day of trial, the Crown agreed to resolve the matter by way of guilty plea to a traffic ticket.

T.B. was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08 after a traffic stop. Mr. McKay filed a Charter motion alleging a breach of T.B.’s section 7 Charter right to full disclosure. The Crown agreed to withdraw all of the charges prior to trial.

G.G. was charged with impaired driving, driving with a blood alcohol level over .08 and failing to remain at the scene of an accident. McKay Criminal Defence filed a Charter motion for a Stay of Proceedings alleging that the Conservation officer who conducted the investigation did not have the statutory authority to detain his client. While the Crown had a strong case, after lengthy negotiations, they conceded the merits of the Charter application and the matter was resolved through a plea to a traffic ticket. The much more serious criminal code offences were withdrawn.

S.D. was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample after being found unconscious in the driver’s seat of a vehicle. Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg filed an extensive Charter notice alleging the police lacked the proper grounds for arrest and used excessive force in dealing with S.D. They also argued a breach of the S.D.’s right to counsel.  The matter was stayed prior to trial.

The Client was charged with refusing to provide a lawful breath sample. She was presented with the Roadside Screening Device, and after three failed attempts at blowing, she was charged. McKay Criminal Defence cross-examined both officers to the point where the Court agreed that they were disingenuous in their attempts to provide the client with the necessary time to provide a sample. McKay Criminal Defence called into question their reliability and credibility as to what actually transpired, and raised doubt that the device used was properly functional at the time. The client was found NOT GUILTY.

The client was facing sure jail after deciding to plead guilty to his 7th impaired driving offence. McKay Criminal Defence produced all necessary materials to the Court and prepared the client to give evidence regarding his past history with addictions issues. Once the client testified, Counsel successfully argued for a probationary term against the very real likelihood of a lengthy jail sentence.

This was a unique case that did not present with many defences at first blush. The youthful client was accused of being in care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol. McKay Criminal Defence brought an application to exclude evidence based on an alleged breach of the young person’s right to a lawyer. This was a unique case where Counsel advanced the novel argument that confusion was raised based on the officer reading the accused his rights under the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the Criminal Code of Canada. Further, once at the detachment, he successfully argued that the officer should have done more in the circumstances to confirm he spoke with a lawyer. The evidence was excluded and the accused was found not guilty. There was no reason for Counsel to proceed to showing that his client was not actually in care and control of the motor vehicle at the time.

The trial proceeded in a case alleging that the client refused to provide a breath sample into an Approved Roadside Screening Device (“ASD”). After argument, the Court agreed with McKay Criminal Defence’s submissions that the officer had no legal justification for the delay he occasioned in advising his client that she was to provide a breath sample into the ASD forthwith (as soon as possible). The client was acquitted.

D.V.P. was charged with numerous offences (including domestic assault, unlawful confinement, various weapons offences, impaired driving, and several breaches of court orders). McKay Criminal Defence ran a contested bail hearing (in a reverse onus situation) and successfully obtained D.V.P.’s release. Counsel was then successful in resolving the matter by negotiating to have the most serious charges withdrawn.

C.S. was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. McKay Criminal Defence filed a pre-trial motion alleging a violation of C.S.’s right to speak with his lawyer of choice. Despite the arresting police officer’s claim that all opportunities for the client to contact a lawyer were exhausted, Counsel successfully argued that the officer did not adhere to the strict requirements of the Charter. C.S. was acquitted.

The client was set to proceed to trial on a fourth allegation of driving while disqualified under the Criminal Code. If convicted, D.B. was facing months of incarceration. After lengthy negotiations with the Crown prosecutor regarding technical evidentiary issues, McKay Criminal Defence was able to persuade the Crown to resolve the matter with a plea to a traffic ticket. Despite the Crown’s relatively strong case, the criminal charges were withdrawn and D.B. was able to avoid another conviction on her criminal record and certain jail.

P.P’s case was set to proceed to trial on charges of impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. McKay Criminal Defence filed a pre-trail Charter motion alleging that the arresting officer did not have the proper grounds for P.P.’s arrest. Counsel also argued that P.P’s right to contact counsel had been breached. The Crown conceded all arguments and the charges were withdrawn before trial.

O.K. was charged with impaired driving, driving with a blood alcohol level over .08, hit & run, dangerous driving and assault with a weapon.  While the Crown’s case looked bullet proof on paper, it began to unravel in the courtroom during Mr. McKay’s cross-examination of the Crown’s key witnesses. Midway through the trial, the Crown withdrew all charges in exchange for a guilty plea to two traffic tickets.

P.H. was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. McKay Criminal Defence filed a pre-trial Charter motion alleging a violation of P.H.’s right to contact counsel. The motion was based on video evidence that clearly depicted the vital points of the interaction between P.H. and the arresting officer. The Crown insisted on proceeding to trial. McKay Criminal Defence argued (based on the Crown’s own evidence) that there was a clear Charter breach and the evidence should be excluded. The Court agreed and the charges were dismissed.

D.T. was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. McKay Criminal Defence’s cross-examination of the RCMP officers made it clear that their “observations” of D.T.’s alleged impairment we exaggerated and could not even meet the low standard to justify a roadside screening.D.T. was acquitted.

C.D. was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. After trial, the judge asked the parties to provide written submissions on two Charter issues. Once McKay Criminal Defence filed their written argument, the Crown conceded the case and had the matter brought into Court for the charges to be withdrawn.

J.B. was charged with disqualified driving under the Criminal Code. After the trial, the Court asked for written submissions from both counsel on the issue of whether J.B.’s right to counsel had been breached. After receiving McKay Criminal Defence’s written brief, the Crown conceded the case and the charge was withdrawn.

The client was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. S.B. was detained for several hours after his arrest. At trial, McKay Criminal Defence was able to demonstrate that the police had no common law or statutory authority to detain S.B in the manner that they did.  The Court concluded that the S.B.’s Charter protected right to be secure against arbitrary detention was violated and granted Counsel’s application for a Judicial Stay of Proceedings.

The client was charged with impaired driving, dangerous driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. While the police maintained that J.R. had waived his constitutional right to contact a lawyer, Counsel was able to persuade the Court that in the unique circumstances of the case, the police were obliged to advise J.R. of his right to counsel upon arrival at the detachment before they asked him to provide breath samples.  The Court found that there was a violation of J.R.’s right to counsel and the evidence of his blood alcohol concentration was excluded as a result. J.R. was acquitted of all charges.

The accused was stopped for speeding and then investigated for impaired driving. The police demanded a sample of K.H.’s breath and K.H. was charged with impaired driving and driving while with a blood alcohol level over .08 as a result.  At trial, Mr. McKay applied for the exclusion of evidence under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms based on the police’s failure to collect the breath samples in a timely fashion. Mr. McKay’s application was granted and K.H. was found not guilty of all charges.

E.K. was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08.  At the end of the trial, Mr. McKay advanced several arguments including that the Crown had failed to prove the identification of the accused. After carefully reviewing the evidence and legal issues, the Court agreed identification had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and E.K. was found not guilty of all charges.

The client was charged with impaired driving and driving while over the legal limit. After Mr. McKay raised a novel argument regarding a breach of the client’s constitutional right to counsel, the client was found not guilty of all charges.

M.B. was charged with impaired driving and driving while over the legal limit.  The client was kept in jail for a number of hours after his arrest without justification.  Mr. McKay sought a stay of proceedings pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms based on a violation of M.B.’s right not to be arbitrarily detained. The stay was granted and M.B. was able to avoid a criminal record. 

Mr. McKay’s client was charged with unlawful confinement, assault with a weapon and uttering death threats. At the trial, the complainant was the first witness for the Crown. After an intense cross-examination, the Crown recognized the serious problems with the complainant’s credibility and invited the Court to dismiss the charges. C.M. was found not guilty of all charges.

T.S. was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm. These were serious offences that could have led to a significant period of incarceration. Mr. McKay conducted a preliminary inquiry in the case and his extensive cross-examination revealed a number of weaknesses in the Crown’s case. As a result, T.S. was offered a plea bargain on the eve of trial. He pled guilty to one count of impaired driving and his sentence involved a fine and probation rather than a penitentiary jail term.

J.N. was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm after a four-car accident in southwest Calgary.  During the preliminary inquiry, Mr. McKay cross-examined the officers involved and established that they failed to respect his client’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Additionally, Mr. McKay’s cross-examination showed that the Crown would have significant problems proving what, exactly, caused the accident. After the preliminary inquiry the matter was set for trial. On the eve of trial, J.N. was offered a resolution and pled guilty to one count of impaired driving. The rest of the charges were withdrawn. Ultimately, J.N. walked away with a driving suspension and a fine rather than a term in the penitentiary. 

The client was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol limit over .08 after he drove his vehicle into 2 parked cars.  After numerous days of trial and a number of successful applications for the exclusion of evidence, the client was found not guilty of all charges.

D.O. was charged with drunk driving. During the investigation, the police used a machine called an Intoxilyzer 5000C to collect D.O.’s breath samples. When the breath technician who operated the machine was called as a witness, Mr. McKay was able to use his expertise in the area to cross-examine him on the technical aspects of the machine. This led to a nuanced argument during which Mr. McKay was able to show that the breath test results were unreliable. D.O. was found not guilty.

S.H. was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08.  At trial, Mr. McKay argued that the police had violated his client’s Constitutional right to consult with counsel of choice. The argument was successful and the incriminating evidence was excluded. S.H. was found not guilty of all charges.