Do You Need a DUI Lawyer?

Do You Need A DUI Lawyer?

 

Get Your 15-Minute DUI Assessment Today

This is your opportunity to take matters into your own hands and get expert answers to your questions.

The DUI Assessment will help you if you have been charged with any of the following:

  • Over 80
  • Impaired driving
  • Dangerous driving
  • Drinking and driving offences involving injury or death
  • Drive disqualified
  • First and subsequent offenders

The DUI Assessment will provide you with:

  • The facts about the charges you face
  • The facts about the criminal justice system
  • How to prepare for an in-office attorney consultation (if necessary)

During our call, I will gather vital facts about the charges you are facing, gain an understanding of your concerns, and most importantly, determine your next best steps.

Call (905) 821-1677 to get your DUI Assessment today!

 

Why Choose Tushar Pain

 Answers to Your Questions.

Before you hire a lawyer, you want information. This includes not only a general understanding of your problem, but also answers to specific questions about how your decision will affect you and your family. I have dedicated my law practice to helping people understand their problems and the solutions I can provide. The basis of this understanding is to have a solicitor who will accurately and completely respond to your questions and concerns.

Close Personal Attention.

I promise I will provide you with the close personal attention you want and deserve. No one likes to think their lawyer is too busy to help them — or unwilling to provide good service. I work hard to treat my clients the way I like to be treated when I’m the client.

Prompt Return Calls.

I promise I will make every effort to return your phone calls promptly. If I don’t call you right away, that means I’m either helping another client or in court. I’ll return your call the moment I’m available.

Confidential Service.

I promise when you hire my services, I will handle your case myself. I will not delegate your file to a junior lawyer, associate, assistant or paralegal. Our lawyer-client relationship is between you and me. Period.

Fair, Reasonable Fees.

Although most people expect lawyers to work on the dreaded hourly rate, I work on block fees. The fees quoted are based on several factors including the nature of your case, the outcome trying to be achieved, and the estimated time required. Most clients prefer the block fee to the hourly rate because it allows them to get a picture of the total cost involved and how they will be paying. In addition, I offer flexible payment plans and various methods of payment. When you hire my services, you are not paying for a penthouse suite of offices or a huge support staff of secretaries and assistants. What you are paying for is the time, thought and effort I invest in you and your particular problem. I apply my knowledge, skill and experience to minimize the risk you face and address your concerns. That is the value you receive. The best lawyer-client relationship is the one when both you and I are happy.

Competent Criminal Defence Services.

I work hard to maintain the highest level of knowledge in the areas of criminal defence law. I attend continuing education classes, seminars and workshops. They allow me to provide you with the latest information, most effective techniques, and most efficient methods of protecting your rights.

Aggressive Representation.

In some cases, I can resolve a matter without going to trial, perhaps through getting a criminal charge withdrawn or through a plea bargain with the Crown. Regardless of whether we are in or out of court, you can depend on me to represent you vigorously and aggressively at every opportunity.

 


 

Call (905) 821-1677 to get your DUI Assessment today!

  • "I was in awe when I heard the words: “Charges have been withdrawn”. For Tushar to have won this case, personally, it’s like having won the lottery. Tushar Pain always made himself available at anytime and for any questions/concerns I had. He worked very hard to obtain many bail changes I had to get in order to keep my job.".

– Henry, Toronto

 


 

DUI Cases Won

Ralph Birnbaum, Hamilton – Drinking and Driving Case

Ralph Birnbaum was depressed about having lost the custody battle for his daughter. He went out one night and had a few drinks. On the drive home, he had an accident and hit a tree. The police arrived shortly after the accident. They questioned him about the accident and his drinking. He admitted to having consumed some alcohol. He was administered a roadside breath test, which he failed. He was then arrested for drinking and driving and taken to the police station for further breath testing. Ultimately, he was charged with ‘over 80’.

R. v. Tara Reid – Drinking and Driving Case

Tara went out one evening to a social and drank a little too much. She made the unfortunate decision to drive home. On her way, she was pulled over for speeding. The officer smelled alcohol on her breath and she was ultimately charged with ‘over 80’. Tara’s blood alcohol concentration was more than double the legal limit.

R. v. Don Newman – Drinking and Driving Case

Don, a university student, went out drinking one night. On his way home, he crashed his car into a lamp post and the car caught on fire. Don was rescued but had broken his neck. He was charged with impaired driving and over 80. After many months of negotiation with the Crown, it eventually agreed to accept a plea to careless driving.

R v. H.K. – Drinking and Driving Case

Hugh Kirby was charged with impaired driving and driving “over 80”. The case against him appeared to be fairly damning. At the start of the trial, an application was made to have the case dismissed for unreasonable delay. The application was dismissed and the trial proceeded. It was adjourned to another date to continue. On that date it was not completed either and was adjourned to a third date. At that time, the application for unreasonable delay was renewed. The charge was ultimately dismissed.

R. v. S.L. – Drinking and Driving Case

Early Saturday morning, Sue Lim was at home by herself having a few drinks. She discovered that she was out of cigarettes and decided to make a quick run to the convenience store. On the way she hit a parked car. Panicked, she tried to drive off but the police arrived and charged her with drinking and driving, over 80, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident – all criminal offences. Sue was extremely concerned about the impact of a criminal record and how it might affect her employment. Following a series of meetings with the Crown’s Office, it finally agreed to drop the criminal charges in exchange for a guilty plea to the charge of careless driving – a non-criminal offence. Sue Lim was extremely relieved.

R. v. S.A. – Drinking and Driving Case

Shelley Astaire got charged with ‘over 80’—her third drinking and driving offence. Her readings were fairly high at nearly twice the legal limit. If she was convicted a third time, she would face a minimum of 90 days in jail. She needed to avoid jail in order to keep her job.

R v. E.M. – Drinking and Driving Case

Eric Milton found himself charged with ‘impaired driving’ and ‘over 80’. The problem was that he was a school teacher. A criminal record for a drinking and driving offence would mean the end of his career. He had to win the case.

R. v. L.D. – Drinking and Driving Case

Lawrence Donald was charged with drinking and driving. The legally permissible blood alcohol concentration is below 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. Lawrence’s blood alcohol concentration was 120. Lawrence didn’t know how he was going to beat the charge. He just knew that he had to. Ultimately, his acquittal turned on the wording the arresting officer used to demand the breath sample.

R v. D.C. – Drinking and Driving Case

Throughout the evening Daniela Carter and her boyfriend had been drinking. At some point in the evening, the two of them started arguing about their relationship. The argument became heated. Ms. Carter became extremely distraught. She ran out of her boyfriend’s place wearing only her housecoat and then got into her car to drive home. On her way home, she was pulled over by a police officer, investigated, and charged with “impaired driving” and “over 80”. Ms. Carter was going through a difficult time in her life and could not afford a criminal record. She came to me to help her fight the charges. At trial, we brought a Charter application claiming that the arresting officer did not have reasonable and probable grounds to take the course of action that he did against Ms. Carter. The trial judge agreed and both charges were dismissed.

R v. S.S. – Drinking and Driving Case

On a cold, October night Sharmaine Shockley was returning from a Halloween party. She got lost on the way home and pulled over to check her map. A police cruiser pulled up behind her to make sure she was okay. That’s when the officer smelled alcohol on her breath. Ms. Shockley was asked to step out of the car. She was then arrested and charged with “impaired driving” and “over 80”. At trial, I argued that the certificate containing her blood-alcohol readings was inadmissible because it contained an error. I also argued that the symptoms observed by the officer did not amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Shockley’s ability to drive was impaired by alcohol. The trial judge agreed and acquitted Ms. Shockley of both charges.

R v. S.D. – Drinking and Driving Case

Sheldon Dobbs was an executive in a highly successful company. The nature of his employment required that he have absolutely no criminal record. He found himself charged with ‘impaired driving’ and ‘over 80’ after a night of holiday celebrations. If convicted, he was convinced that he would lose his job.

R. v. S.C. – Drinking and Driving Case

Sam Carrington, a successful lawyer, found himself charged with drinking and driving. If convicted, he would not only be saddled with a criminal record, but he could lose his licence to practice law as well. The stakes were very high for Sam. Sam came to me for help. Given Sam’s situation, we decided that the charge of drinking and driving had to be fought. At trial, I got the breath test results excluded. As a result, the charge was dismissed and Sam was acquitted.

R. v Ted Gets – Drinking and Driving Case

Ted Gets, a highly educated man, was spotted by police driving the wrong way down a one-way street. He was investigated and then charged with impaired driving and ‘over 80’. The arresting officer testified that Mr. Gets was feigning providing a roadside breath sample. At trial, both charges of impaired driving and ‘over 80’ were dismissed.

R. v. Reid Vernon – Drinking and Driving Case

Reid Vernon was pulled over because he had an expired plate sticker. The officer smelled alcohol on his breath and he was eventually charged with ‘over 80’. At trial the charge was dismissed as a result of the officer making an improper breath demand for a roadside breath sample.

R. v. Kyle Frye – Drinking and Driving Case

Kyle found himself facing a R.I.D.E. program spot check just after having left his friend’s place and having had consumed several beers. He was investigated at the roadside, where he failed the roadside breath test. He was then arrested and transported to the police station, where he was charged with ‘over 80’. The charge was ultimately dismissed after the judge found that there was an unexplained delay in the taking of the breath samples at the police station.

R. v. Carmen Wang – Over 80 Case

Carmen was pulled over in a R.I.D.E. spot check. He failed the roadside screening test and was ultimately charged with ‘over 80’ after he failed another set of breath tests at the police station. At trial he was ultimately acquitted as the trial judge found a reasonable doubt based on the reliability of the breath technician’s evidence.

 


 

About Tushar Pain

I earned my Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from the University of Toronto and graduated from law school at the University of Alberta. Following my call to the bar in Ontario, I started my own practice in Toronto.

I practiced in the area of criminal defense law and I am a member of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association and the Law Society of Upper Canada. I have appeared at various levels of court including the Ontario Court of Justice, the Superior Court of Justice and, The Court of Appeal for Ontario. My work has included representing clients at bail hearings, “judge alone” trials, jury trials, appeals, and applications for special remedies. The range of criminal charges I defend include but are not limited to assault, sexual assault, robbery, drug offences, weapons offences, firearms offences, arson, theft, fraud, break & enter, drinking and driving offences, attempted murder, murder, securities offences, tax evasion, regulatory offences, Internet and Intranet crimes, computer crimes, offences under the Environmental Protection Act, professional disciplinary offences, embezzlement, corporate crimes, and conspiracy offences.

I have written articles on topics in criminal law and have been published in the Lawyers’ Weekly newspaper.

Although most of my clients are in the greater Toronto and outlying areas, I also helped people in other regions of Southern Ontario including York Region, Durham Region, Peel Region, Barrie, Orillia, and Orangeville.

I have assisted people involved in many different aspects of the criminal justice system including those facing police investigation or police action; people who have been charged; people under court orders; people involved in a case as non-parties such as witnesses and sureties; people seeking legal advice and opinions; and people appealing their cases.

Downtown Office 120 Carlton Street Suite 205 Toronto, Ontario M5A 4K2


View Larger Map



Uptown Office 178 Main Street Unionville, Ontario L3R 2G9


View Larger Map