Ravi Prithipaul – Notable Cases
Below is a selection of notable cases that Ravi Prithipaul has won over the years. These cases showcase Ravi Prithipaul’s expertise as an Edmonton criminal lawyer.
R. v. R., 2004 ABQB 13: Impaired driving – identification of accused as driver – did the trial judge became focussed on which side he preferred in relation to this case, rather than whether or not the Crown had proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt – “while I give Ravi Prithipaul, as Counsel for the Appellant, full credit for a very intellectually stimulating and well presented argument, I do not find the actual mistake that is suggested, and, consequently, the appeal is dismissed” – the trial judge was addressing the very point which a W.(D.) analysis would require him to address, namely, whether or not there is a third possibility that there was a mistake on the part of the constable.
R. v. L., 1997 ABCA 37: Impaired driving – roadside breath testing – accused arrested for impaired driving to prevent driver from fleeing, then made screening demand – screening test “fail” reading gave officer grounds to make evidential demand – held: conviction upheld – “the unique circumstances of this case persuade us that the demand made of the Appellant falls within … the ambit of Section 254(2). That is because, in our view, the ‘arrest’ here was the functional equivalent of a detention intended only to facilitate the roadside screening contemplated by the enactment”.
R. v. J., 2005 ABQB 268: impaired driving – absence of evidence to make a breathalyzer demand – convicted at trial overturned on appeal – held: “I conclude that there was insufficient evidence from which the trial judge could reasonably infer that a proper demand for a breathalyzer test in accordance with s. 254(3)(a) had been made. As a result, one of the conditions precedent for admissibility of the Certificate of Analyses was not met and the Certificate should not have been admitted”.
R. v. A., 2005 ABPC 287: impaired driving – reasonable grounds requirement to make breathzlyzer demand – officer’s failure to form grounds that offence occurred within previous three hours results in finding that accused’s Charter rights violated – “One of the prerequisites of a proper demand relates to time, i.e., reasonable and probable grounds that the accused was committing a s. 253 offence within the preceding three hours… I have no evidence from the officer that he addressed his mind to this issue; nor is there any evidence from which I could infer he did so. I find that the Crown has not met their onus to justify the warrantless seizure of breath samples, therefore, I find that the seizure of breath samples from the applicant in these circumstances was unreasonable and an infringement of the applicant’s s. 8 Charter rights – accused found not guilty.
R. v. D., 2002 ABCA 2: Public Health Act – regulatory offences – defendant landlord sought particulars of offence – held: disclosure material constituted sufficient detail of allegations – application for leave to appeal dismissed.
R. v. E., 2009 ONCJ 149: impaired driving – prospective vs. retrospective application of (then) recent amendments to Criminal Code – were the amendments substantive or merely evidential in nature – “While that conclusion is sufficient to terminate this judgment I propose to continue with a review of some of Ravi Prithipaul’s written submissions in support of a finding against retrospectivity that have been posted on Alan Gold’s Collection of Criminal Law Articles [ADGN/RP-215 (November 15, 2008)]. I am of the view that Ravi Prithipaul persuasively makes the case that these amendments are substantive in effect and cannot be retrospectively applied to pending cases”.
R. v. L., 1999 ABCA 39: domestic violence – criminal harassment – trial judgment affirmed – “We have considered carefully your submissions Ravi Prithipaul. However, we are not able to see that the trial judge in this case erred in any way, or that her conclusions were unreasonable. The appeal is therefore dismissed”.
R. c. V., 2004 ABPC 188: drinking and driving – trial conducted in French –breath test results in English – required to be translated in French – right to counsel – French-speaking accused understood and received opportunity of exercising right even though rights given in English.
R. v. S., 2012 ABPC 17: drinking and driving –credibility of police witnesses – two officers involved in accused’s arrest – “Cst. F. admitted to reading the report of Cst. S. prior to testifying in these proceedings. He claimed that the information that he read in Cst. S.’s report did not effect his testimony and that the information he was providing in his testimony was what he could recall of the events of what happened. Cst. F. did not offer an explanation why he resorted to reading Cst. S.’s report … I have no confidence in the accuracy of Cst. F.’s testimony” – notwithstanding credibility problems, second officer’s investigation sufficiently reliable and accused convicted.