Need help and advise...

[thompo69]

Nolo Contendere is in Canada. Your post is an example of why people should NEVER get legal advice from an escort review board.

You try it in front of a JP for a DUI without a few hrs of back room dealing and the Crown will… Well I would never try it. But hey, what do I know?

If $ is an issue ask one of the X-cop companies. If $ flows ask a lawyer. But you can ask us our opinion on anything!

No, it isn't in Canada. Allow me to cite the Criminal Code, which is a little more authoritative than Wikipedia:

606. (1) An accused who is called on to plead may plead guilty or not guilty, or the special pleas authorized by this Part and no others.

Now, I know, you're probably going to suggest that "nolo contendere" is a special plea. Except it isn't. How do I know this? Because the Code again identifies special pleas:

607. (1) An accused may plead the special pleas of

(a) autrefois acquit;

(b) autrefois convict; and

(c) pardon.

You'll notice the period after pardon. That means that there are no other special pleas. As you can see, an accused does not have the option of pleading no contest to a criminal charge in Canada.

 

[emvee]

Realistically, just plead no contest at the first appearance, get it over with.

Never be in a hurry to get a legal issue resolved. You will always get a worse result if you try to drive it to a quick conclusion.

If you think you may be found guilty, a good lawyer may be able to get you something like a suspended sentence or a conditional discharge which will be well worth the money years from now. Assuming the terms are met, it results in no conviction against you (key point: guilty and conviction are not interchangable terms).

 

[LordLoki]

No, it isn't in Canada. Allow me to cite the Criminal Code, which is a little more authoritative than Wikipedia:

606. (1) An accused who is called on to plead may plead guilty or not guilty, or the special pleas authorized by this Part and no others.

Now, I know, you're probably going to suggest that "nolo contendere" is a special plea. Except it isn't. How do I know this? Because the Code again identifies special pleas:

607. (1) An accused may plead the special pleas of

(a) autrefois acquit;

(b) autrefois convict; and

(c) pardon.

You'll notice the period after pardon. That means that there are no other special pleas. As you can see, an accused does not have the option of pleading no contest to a criminal charge in Canada.

Damn and in my naive thoughts I believed that 4.2 The Implementation of Federal Rule 11 actually existed in Canada.

Even though it does not apply in this case, I thought it did exist.

A wise man would not ask advise of random strangers though.....

 

[thompo69]

Damn and in my naive thoughts I believed that 4.2 The Implementation of Federal Rule 11 actually existed in Canada.

Even though it does not apply in this case, I thought it did exist.

A wise man would not ask advise of random strangers though.....

Fair enough, and I agree with you completely.

 

[scrooge]

Is DUI a strict liability offence like speeding? I think there is a lot of parallel here... just like the breathyliser can be faulty, the radar can be as well.

Whether 120 is enough to me someone intoxicated or sober is open to debate (and tests). If this theory is accepted, DUI would almost become a case-by-case basis, which would be utterly chaotic. A strict reading of 80 is a good policy.

I think your friend here does not realize the magnitude of this. I second others' thoughts here - this is a criminal offence, if convicted. It is a very different animal from something like speeding. How someone can show up at court for a criminal trial without proper legal representation (by choice) is beyond me.

 

[lookit]

Don’t the police have you blow at the roadside, then again at the police station? Curious how this works.

Would not expect that 2.5 glasses of wine, and a beer in 6 hours would have someone blowing over. I had to blow once after two pints of light beer in 1.5 hours, 0.049, lucky day.

Thought that paralegals could not deal with criminal matters?

He said there was a portable station parked beside all the cops cars and that's where he was taken after the initial blow.

He didn't think he'd blow over too with very little consumption but I guess that's why he's in this predicament.

 

[syn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere

Nolo Contendere is in Canada. Your post is an example of why people should NEVER get legal advice from an escort review board.

QUOTE]

um. getting information from wikepedia is not that much better than getting advice from terbites.

syn

 

[lookit]

Only 2 1/2 glasses of wine and a beer over six hours and he blew 120?

Not likely unless he was around 140 lbs.

More likely each "glass" of wine was more than the standard measure and that he drank them in the latter part of the evening.

Either way 120 is most defintely impaired.

The best he can do is fight it with a good lawyer as the consequences are far reaching for many.

Good story to keep everyone aware of what can happen.

He is about 5'8" and around 153. He claims to have not eaten much at the party due to some bad chinese the night before and guess what they were serving at the party -chinese food.

120 is indeed impaired but he said he wasn't even buzzed when he left the party. I guess a good lesson for everyone to never never take the chance once you had at least one drink, and drive a motor vehicle. But then again, how many of us really have taken a cab or let someone else drive our car after having one beer or one glass of wine. It is so much easier said than done and hindsight is always 20/20. I am not condoning with he has done by any means but as what you said, these consequences that just happened is not a stretch by any means.

 

[lookit]

Is DUI a strict liability offence like speeding? I think there is a lot of parallel here... just like the breathyliser can be faulty, the radar can be as well.

Whether 120 is enough to me someone intoxicated or sober is open to debate (and tests). If this theory is accepted, DUI would almost become a case-by-case basis, which would be utterly chaotic. A strict reading of 80 is a good policy.

I think your friend here does not realize the magnitude of this. I second others' thoughts here - this is a criminal offence, if convicted. It is a very different animal from something like speeding. How someone can show up at court for a criminal trial without proper legal representation (by choice) is beyond me.

I totally agree with you! This is not a small infraction by any means and I think he knows that - I mean how can you not....but because of his not so good financial situation, he is being cautious on who to get to represent him. He plans to meet with a couple of lawyers (He's looking for someone who offers free consultation and with more reasonable rates - dunno if that exists) and someone from XCopper or another similar company just to get as many inputs before making his decision.

 

[zekestone]

Only 2 1/2 glasses of wine and a beer over six hours and he blew 120?

Not likely unless he was around 140 lbs.

More likely each "glass" of wine was more than the standard measure and that he drank them in the latter part of the evening.

Either way 120 is most defintely impaired.

The best he can do is fight it with a good lawyer as the consequences are far reaching for many.

Good story to keep everyone aware of what can happen.

And don't forget... some wine is 7% alcohol and other wines are over 12%.

And the beer could be one of the stronger 6-7% alcohol beers.

3.5 stronger drinks is like having 5-6 light to regular drinks.

If I drink, I'll always stick to light beer or lower alcohol wine and I'll hold it to two drinks (note that I weigh around 180 pounds). One drink per hour and then I wait an hour for each drink I've had. If I have a stronger beer or a stronger red wine, I'll treat each as two drinks.

So if you're about my weight and have 2.5 large glasses of stronger red wine and then a Labatt Ice, to be totally safe, wait at least 4-5 hours after the last drink.

The one time I got stopped by RIDE, I was coming from the Wine and Cheese show. At the show I followed my rule. When the cop asked if I had something to drink, I told him the truth.

And when I blew, I blew a .018 (with .05 being the warning level, and .08 being the 'suspended licence' level)

So to summarize... For someone at around 180 pounds, it's 1 light to regular drink per hour... and then after your last drink, you wait the same number of hours as the number of drinks you had. Heavier people can have a little more, lighter people less.

 

[hunter001]

120 is indeed impaired but he said he wasn't even buzzed when he left the party.

I love when people say this, it is like some sort of internal breathalyser or something.

 

[colt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere
Nolo Contendere is in Canada. Your post is an example of why people should NEVER get legal advice from an escort review board.

Ah yes, the very authoritative wikipedia. You might want to check your source. The "authority" that the wikipedia cites is an article on Victim Participation in sentencing in Canada that cites US Federal Criminal procedure (which includes nolo pleas) as a model for comparison. It does not say that nolo pleas are part of the fabric in Canada.

Criminal procedure in Canada is a matter of statute, not common law. The pleas permitted in indictable offences are prescribed by s. 606 of the criminal code, pleas permitted in summary conviction offences are prescribed by s. 801.

Keep up the bang on legal research - why look at things like statutes and case law when we have wikipedia.

 

[colt]

Thought that paralegals could not deal with criminal matters?

If person is not liable for a prison term longer than 6 months on a summary conviction offence an agent (ie paralegal) can appear. If Crown proceeds summarily on an imparied charge a paralegal can appear because maximum sentence allowed is 6 months.

 

[fuji]

the costs associated with being convicted are great enough that it is worth consulting an attorney.

Understatement of the century. He's going to need to do more than "consult" an attorney. He's going to need to hire one full on and get the best outcome he can. From the sounds of it, that might be a discharge of some sort, since I think they've got him, but it's his lawyer's job to make that call.

 

[lookit]

Understatement of the century. He's going to need to do more than "consult" an attorney. He's going to need to hire one full on and get the best outcome he can. From the sounds of it, that might be a discharge of some sort, since I think they've got him, but it's his lawyer's job to make that call.

This is really what it comes down to - how good his lawyer is and how he can successfully (or not, but for my buddy's sake I hope he can get him discharged) defend the case.

 

[oldjones]

A good friend of mine blew over the legal limit on the breathalizer during a checkpoint downtown.

…edit of material that might be relevant in court, but has no bearing on the question being asked here…

Money being a factor, is he better off going to a DUI Lawyer or XCopper or a similar company for legal representation for his case? Any suggestions would be appreciated.

The judgment that put your friend behind the wheel should not be used to decide whether or not he should get a lawyer.

Too bad your friend's doing his serious thinking now, instead of back then. Even before considering the money factor, he should consider that this is a criminal matter; a conviction will lump him in the company of child molesters, murderers, thieves and, yes people who think it's OK to drive after drinking. It will forever affect his future, from job prospects to foreign travel.

Then he can consider the dollars he'll be spending in increased insurance when he gets his license back, along w/ perhaps having to hire a driver if his job requires driving (as mine did). He should not for a moment imagine he can navigate the legal system w/o an experienced and trusty guide, the best he can afford, LLB equipped or not.

Sad to say, that'll just clog the system; those cases are so common, the evidence is almost indisputable and the loopholes and technicalities have been reduced to almost zero by very practised cops and Crowns. Numbers on the dial were witnessed, the machine verified—unlike the drinks count—and the numbers are the offence. But the penalties, legal and other are so severe he has little choice but to protect his interest and clog away, faint hope or no.

One could hope we might consider that the next time our instinct is to call for zero-tolerance and criminal sanctions to 'solve' a problem. Just like we can hope people will think, not drink and drive.

PS: On the brighter side. TTC and lots and lots of taxis will still be cheaper than gas, parking and insurance—never mind depreciation—unless he lives way outta town. In which case, with no alternatives, he was even more foolish to engage in any conduct that even remotely might endanger his driving privileges.

 

[fuji]

If he can't beat the charge his lawyer should aim to get him a "discharge". That is still a criminal conviction and record, but one that automatically clears after 10 years. So his life will only be fucked up for 10 years, instead of forever, in that case.

In any case a good lawyer will tell him his options asking on terb is kind of silly.... do update us with the outcome though, I do love a good story!!

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

The criminal record is probably a bigger deal than the suspended license. A suspended license is an inconvenience that goes away after the suspension. A criminal record sticks with you for life and bites you in the ass every time you apply for a job, cross a border, etc.

Whether it's worth mounting an expensive defense depends on how much pain the record will cause. For many people not much. For some people a lot.

Don't forget the added pain of insurance premium increases.

The way insurance firms operate these days, the cost of a lawyer will inevitably be much less than the increase in insurance premiums over the next 5 years.

 

[thompo69]

If he can't beat the charge his lawyer should aim to get him a "discharge". That is still a criminal conviction and record, but one that automatically clears after 10 years. So his life will only be fucked up for 10 years, instead of forever, in that case.

In any case a good lawyer will tell him his options asking on terb is kind of silly.... do update us with the outcome though, I do love a good story!!

An absolute discharge clears your record after 1 year, a conditional discharge (more likely) clears it after 3. I think 10 years is for applying for a pardon.

 

[fuji]

An absolute discharge clears your record after 1 year, a conditional discharge (more likely) clears it after 3. I think 10 years is for applying for a pardon.

Thanks for the clarification. Is that a recent change? I thought it used to be 10 years.

Anyway. One more thing to add: Don't travel to the US during the time your record exists. Once the US border people become aware that you have a record they store it in THEIR computers, and they don't recognize Canadian pardons, so it can go on bothering you for years.

If you avoid the US for the 1-3 years after than when you cross they won't find the record because it will have been deleted from the Canadian computers they connect to.