Consumption of alcohol or drug not intentional

Defences for Drug Trafficking in Toronto
Table of Contents
    Add a header to begin generating the table of contents
    Scroll to Top

    Legal Defence

    Consumption of Alcohol or a Drug was involuntary (not intentional).

    What this Means

    Notwithstanding that it has been proven that an accused’s ability to drive was impaired by alcohol or a drug or that the accused was over the legal limit, It has not been proven that the accused knowingly consumed alcohol or a drug before operating a conveyance (a conveyance is defined as a motor vehicle, an aircraft, a vessel or railway equipment).

    For any case in which you are charged with impaired operation of a conveyance or operation of a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration of blood drug concentration over the legal limit, it is a defence to the charge if there is a
    reasonable doubt as to whether the alcohol or drug was voluntarily consumed.

    This defence would arise in circumstances where there is an air of reality to the possibility that you did not realize that you were consuming alcohol for a drug. For example, in circumstances where your drink could have been spiked without your knowledge.

    Charged with a Criminal Offence? Get Every Defence.

    Do not plead guilty without discussing your case with a lawyer.  Many criminal offences have mandatory minimum sentences and a conviction will often result in a lengthy jail sentence.  Being found guilty may result in negative employment, immigration and personal consequences to you and your family for years to come.  

    You are presumed innocent.  With over 25 years of successful trial experience, Norm and Marcus will argue for every defence available to you and ensure that all of your rights are protected.  We will fight for the positive result you need to move on with your life.
    Speak with Norm and Marcus. Call (416) 855-7799 or email us at [email protected] We accept calls 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Confidentiality guaranteed. Free consultations. Meeting by appointment only.
    Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyers

    Recent Successes

    Charges DismissedFail to Remain at the Scene of an AccidentIdentificationImpaired DrivingRefuse Breath Sample

    R. v. C.C – Identification of offender not proven

    Our client was charged with Fail to Remain at the Scene of an Accident, Impaired Driving and Refuse Breath Sample. The police received several calls regarding a car that had driven onto the sidewalk and crashed into a utility pole and fire hydrant. The driver ran away from the vehicle and fled through an alleyway. Police searched the area and observed our client, who fit the description of the man witnesses had seen running from where the accident had happened. After speaking to our client for a few minutes, our client became belligerent leading the police officers to handcuff him and detained him in their police car. Our client appeared to be impaired by alcohol. Because our client had refused to identify himself, the police went through his wallet to try to locate his identification. When going through his wallet, the police found a vehicle permit for the vehicle that had been in the accident. At trial, we demonstrated that none of the witnesses actually saw our client get out of the vehicle that had been in the accident. We also successfully argued that our client’s Charter right to be free from arbitrary detention was breached when the police handcuffed and detained him in the police car. They also breached his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure when they went through his wallet and found the vehicle permit. As a result of these breaches, the circumstantial evidence of the vehicle permit was excluded from evidence and the charges against our client were dismissed.

    AssaultAssault Bodily HarmCharges WithdrawnIdentification

    R. v. C.M – Identification of offender not proven

    Our client was charged with Assault Cause Bodily Harm and Assault in relation to a bar fight in which one of the victims was seriously injured as a result of being hit in the head with a beer bottle. We were able to convince the Crown Attorney that considering the commotion inside the bar at the time, the number of people involved in the fight, the poor lighting inside the bar and the fact that all the witnesses appeared to be intoxicated, it was extremely unlikely that it could be proven that our client was the individual who had committed the assaults in question. The charges against our client were withdrawn prior to trial.

    Charges DismissedDangerous DrivingFlight from PoliceIdentification

    R. v. M.N. – Identification of offender not proven

    Our client was charged with Flight from Police and Dangerous Driving. He was accused of going close to 200 km/hr on a motorcycle and, when the police tried to pull him over, fleeing at an even higher rate of speed and evading the police officer who was in pursuit. The police officer noted the licence plate number but was unable to identify the rider. At trial, the Crown Attorney had to rely entirely on circumstantial evidence to try to prove the case; specifically the owner of the motorcycle testified that he had loaned the bike to our client on the night of the incident and that our client had even confided in him that he had been able to outrun the police. At trial, the credibility of the owner of the motorcycle was attacked through effective cross-examination. The charges against our client were dismissed on the basis that the identification of the rider of the motorcycle had not been proven.

    Charges DismissedIdentificationRobbery

    R. v. M.R – Identification of offender not proven, Charges Dismissed

    Our client was charged with robbing a man of his wallet in an alleyway. It was alleged that our client had befriended the victim in a bar and that when they went outside for a cigarette together, our client threatened and assaulted the victim and stole his wallet. Our client’s health card was found by the victim in the ground in the alleyway where the robbery had taken place shortly after the assailant was said to have fled. At trial, through effective cross-examination, we successfully demonstrated that victim’s ability to describe the assailant was unreliable and that he may have been mistaken in his belief that the individual who’s photograph was on the health card (our client) was the same person who had robbed him. After our cross-examination of the victim, the Crown Attorney invited the judge to dismiss the charge.

    AssaultDomestic AssaultNot GuiltySelf Defence

    R. v G.B. – Reasonable doubt re: self-defence

    Our client was charged with several domestic related assaults that his girlfriend alleged had occurred over the course of a couple of months. At trial, our client testified that any physical altercations with his girlfriend were the result of his girlfriend having been the aggressor and that any force he used was done for the purpose of defending himself. We also called witnesses who testified about they dynamic of the relationship and that, on several occasions, they had observed the complainant behave in an aggressive manner towards our client.  As a result of our effective cross-examination of the complainant, the judge has significant concerns about the complainant’s credibility. The trial judge concluded that based on all of the evidence, he was uncertain of who to believe and that he had a reasonable doubt that our client may have acted in self-defence. Our client was found not guilty of all the charges.

    Assault Bodily HarmSelf Defence

    R. v. D.T. – Reasonable doubt re: self-defence

    Our client was charged with assault bodily harm after it was alleged that while at a party, our client hit a man in the face with a glass that resulted in serious injuries. At trial, our client testified that his friend had invited him to a party and that while he was socializing, one of the partygoers accused our client of flirting with his girlfriend. This man, along with his friends, surrounded our client in a threatening manner. Our client, who was holding a glass of beer at the time, believed one of the men was about to punch him and that he reacted by striking the man in the face with the glass he was holding. The Court did not reject our client’s evidence and found that it had at least a reasonable doubt that our client had acted in self-defence.