DUI Questions
- Thread starter Keebler Elf
- Start date
tboy said:
That's very rare...especially with that type of charge.
I hope they throw the book at anyone that thinks they are immune to this type of thing, and the system. I know all about it, I was on the other end, I was almost killed by a drunk driver who had 3 times the limit in him.
I'd rather have a pop or water, than have to worry about a spot check etc.
You don't need liquor to have a good time, just naked women!!!!
You don't need liquor to have a good time, just naked women!!!!
He can plead guilty and start his 1 year suspension immediately (assuming 1st offence) or plead not guilty and have a trial date set.Keebler Elf said:
If he is fighting it, the lawyer can take care of this and he does not have to show.
I don't think it is worth fighting unless one is prepared to pay for a very good lawyer ($5k-$10k).
There are many lawyers who will take the case for much less cash but this will probably just be a waste of money and 1 year plus the 90 day suspension.
If it weren't for the criminal conviction and the ramifications thereof, it sounds like he would plead guilty and take the punishment. But there's a significant chance that having a record will truly fuck over his career so I think he's prepared to pay whatever it takes (and if that means $5K-10K, so be it).
He knows he fucked up and he knows he needs to pay a penalty, but he's looking at the possibility of a ruined career so that's a factor. I'm just grateful he didn't get in an accident or kill someone.
He knows he fucked up and he knows he needs to pay a penalty, but he's looking at the possibility of a ruined career so that's a factor. I'm just grateful he didn't get in an accident or kill someone.
He can pay "whatever it takes" to buy the best defense possible but there is still a good chance of losing, although it is far from as hopeless as some uninformed people assume.
stang said:
The sad thing is... you know they'll be guys out there doing the exact same thing tonight.
I was just reading on the MTO site and noticed that there seems to be a distinction between being charged with blowing over .08 (90-day license suspension) and being charged with impaired driving (the severe penalties).
I took a look at my cousin's Promise to Appear notice and the only charge listed is blowing over .08.
Am I reading too much into this, or is there a difference in punishment between a blowing over conviction vs. an impaired driving conviction? He's going to a lawyer one way or another (I'll make sure of that!), but it's just something I noticed.
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/impaired/breaklaw/breaklaw.htm
I took a look at my cousin's Promise to Appear notice and the only charge listed is blowing over .08.
Am I reading too much into this, or is there a difference in punishment between a blowing over conviction vs. an impaired driving conviction? He's going to a lawyer one way or another (I'll make sure of that!), but it's just something I noticed.
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/impaired/breaklaw/breaklaw.htm
http://www.lawyers.ca/statutes/criminal_code_of_canada_impaired_driving.htm
That website quotes the law. Over 80 and impaired driving are just two different ways of landing in hot water under the same section of the criminal code. When facing legal action it is useful to try and familiarize yourself with the actual law. It's generally readable. Also go and read up on case law as well, as best you can, and do what you're doing here, which is get insight from people who have been through it before.
All these things will help you put better questions to your lawyer and ensure you are getting the best and most appropriate defense possible.
That website quotes the law. Over 80 and impaired driving are just two different ways of landing in hot water under the same section of the criminal code. When facing legal action it is useful to try and familiarize yourself with the actual law. It's generally readable. Also go and read up on case law as well, as best you can, and do what you're doing here, which is get insight from people who have been through it before.
All these things will help you put better questions to your lawyer and ensure you are getting the best and most appropriate defense possible.
Impaired driving is a charge which can be laid when a person is deemed to be driving under the influence but isn't over the legal alcohol level.
In some cases, the cops will tack this on as an additional charge on top of being over the legal alcohol limit.
Impaired, blowing over, and refusing to blow basically have the same penalties with all other considerations being equal.
There was a report on CTV recently which really surprised me.
I would have guessed the conviction rate would be around 75% or so.
I can't remember the exact rate but it was shockingly low.
I think they claimed it was less than 50% which I found hard to believe.
In some cases, the cops will tack this on as an additional charge on top of being over the legal alcohol limit.
Impaired, blowing over, and refusing to blow basically have the same penalties with all other considerations being equal.
There was a report on CTV recently which really surprised me.
I would have guessed the conviction rate would be around 75% or so.
I can't remember the exact rate but it was shockingly low.
I think they claimed it was less than 50% which I found hard to believe.
Has anyone ever heard of Mitchell Worsoff from Worsoff & Associates (Barristers & Solicitors)? He works out of north Toronto and specializes in impaired driving cases.
Keebler Elf said:
Look up the Toronto Star series, "A Few for the Road" by Jim Rankin to see coverage of one of Worsoff's impaired cases.
I think the link is www3.thestar.com/static/PDF/afewfortheroad.pdf
Syn
oldjones said:
Does anyone know if our government shares details about Canadians' criminal convictions with US customs personnel at the border? I find that type of thing questionable from a privacy standpoint. I can see maybe major crimes and violent offenders being outed by our own gov't but if someone got busted for some relatively minor, non-violent criminal behaviour and received a suspended sentence, say, 30 or 40 years ago, is our government automatically sharing that with US border guards? I thought we had privacy laws that protected our info unless we consented in writing to a background check. Same with medical records, banking, taxes and all that other private stuff.
Last edited:
