Jump to Navigation

Vancouver Impaired Driving Defence Lawyers

Law Firm Fighting Charges of Drinking and Driving in British Columbia

People investigated for drunk driving may be charged with the criminal offences of Impaired Driving and/or Driving Over .08. Police normally recommend both of these DUI charges. When a person refuses to provide a breath sample, they can be charged with Refusal. The penalties for all three offences are the same. For a first offence, there is a minimum $1000 fine and a one year driving prohibition. The resulting conviction may cause problems with criminal record checks and with crossing international borders.

The new Motor Vehicle Act legislation in British Columbia causes additional problems for those convicted of Criminal Code impaired driving offences. At the end of driving prohibition, offenders are required to complete the Responsible Drivers Program and to install and maintain an ignition interlock device on any car they drive for 12 months.

Whether or not a person is charged criminally for a drunk driving offence, police in BC can now impose an Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) for three to 90 days. This involves vehicle impoundment and a strict driving prohibition, the length of which is determined by the person's driving record and whether they blew a warn or a fail on the roadside breath screening device.

The laws involved in DUI cases are complex. Charter rights, such as the right to consult a lawyer upon detention come into play in almost every case. Our lawyers have more than 18 years experience navigating our way through these cases for people in the Lower Mainland and throughout British Columbia. We are skilled, hardworking and dedicated in helping you achieve the best possible result with your drinking and driving case. Our goal is to help you avoid conviction and to keep you driving.

In one of our recent successes (R. v. H.B. in Vancouver Provincial Court), our client was charged with impaired driving and refusing to take a breath test. At issue was whether our client's rights were violated during the traffic stop. We convinced the Crown to grant a stay of proceedings. No jail time.

Defence Against Other Driving Charges

We defend against all driving charges, including dangerous driving and Motor Vehicle Act charges such as Driving While Prohibited and the new Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) offences. We assist clients facing Motor Vehicle Act driving prohibitions and fines. We understand that, for most people, it is imperative to do everything possible to prevent a driving prohibition.

Start With a Free Initial Consultation

To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver impaired driving defence lawyers, call 877-467-1804 or contact us via e-mail.

Recent Successes | Click to View
  • April 17, 2012
    R. vs. B.H. - North Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge:Assault Causing Bodily Harm (domestic).
    Issue:Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove bodily harm.
    Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser charge of simple assault. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted his client a conditional discharge. No conviction.
  • April 13, 2012
    R. vs. B.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Assault.
    Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
    Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay the criminal charge upon his client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal conviction.
  • April 12, 2012
    R. vs. J.T. - Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge:Extortion (x4); Uttering Threats.
    Issue:Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
    Result: After considering Mr. Mansoori-Dara's representations with repect to the credibility of the complainants, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
  • April 12, 2012
    R. vs. R.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Driving While Prohibited; Failing to Attend Court.
    Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charges.
    Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a licence and to stay the FTA charge. No criminal record. No driving prohibition.
  • April 2, 2012
    R. vs. A.A. - Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Criminal Harassment.
    Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
    Result: The Crown had originally sought a jail sentence, however Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to stay the criminal charge upon his client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal conviction.
  • March 28, 2012
    R. vs. L.D. - Richmond Provincial Court
    Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
    Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, it was in the public interset to proceed with a criminal charge.
    Result: Mr. Mines was able to intervene at the earliest stage of the prosecution, He persuaded Crown Counsel to approve no charge in this case. No record
  • March 27, 2012
    R. vs. V.T. - Richmond Provincial Court
    Charges: Extortion.
    Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove the Extortion offence.
    Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay the Extortion charge and to proceed on the lesser offence of criminal harassment. Crown originally sought a significant jail sentence, but agreed to make a joint submission for a conditional discharge. No jail. No conviction.
  • March 26, 2012
    R. vs. P.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charges: Sex Assault; Assault.
    Issue: Whether Crown would be able to prove that there was no consent given, resulting in a conviction for sex assault.
    Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to stay the sex assault charge and proceed only on the lesser charge of common assault. The Crown originally sought a significant jail sentence, but agreed to a joint submission of one day (less time served) and probation.
  • March 9, 2012
    R. vs. J.Z. - Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Breaking and Entering; Possession of Stolen Property.
    Issue: Whether, given the circumstances of this commercial property offence, it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
    Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to allow his client into the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.
  • February 15, 2012
    R. vs. C.S.F. - Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
    Issue: Whether the Court would impose the one year jail sentence the Crown sought in this $100,000 theft from employer case.
    Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted his client a Conditional Sentence Order. No jail.
  • February 15, 2012
    R. vs. S.N.K. - Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
    Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was in the public interest for Mr. Mines' client to receive a conditional discharge.
    Result: Though the Crown sought a jail sentence due to the degree of injury sustained by the complainant, the Court, after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, granted a conditional discharge.
  • February 14, 2012
    R. vs. A.A. - North Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charges: Criminal Harrassment; Threatening.
    Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove the criminal charges.
    Result: Despite his client having a prior related record, Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay the criminal charges upon his client entering into a Peace Bond.
  • January 31,2012
    R. vs. E.B. - Richmond Provincial Court
    Charge: Assault Police Officer.
    Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was in the public interest for Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client to be granted a conditional discharge.
    Result: After hearing Mr. Mansoori-Dara's submissions, the court granted his client a conditional discharge. No conviction.
  • January 25, 2012
    R. vs. V.K. - Richmond Provincial Court
    Charges: Theft Under $5000 (from employer).
    Issue: Whether it was contrary to the public interest for Mr. Mines' client to be granted a conditional discharge.
    Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted a 9 month conditional discharge. No criminal conviction .
Michael Mines - Profile Reza Mansoori-Dara - Profile
Free Initial Consultation

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an lawyer-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close