SUCCESSFUL CASE DECISIONS

• R. v. C.M.

  The client was charged with two charges of mischief (damage to property) under $5000. The allegation arose when there was a dispute between the parties. After presenting the crown with my assessment of the matter, and a proposed resolution, the crown agreed to outright withdraw the charges against my client. My client was left with a clean record and no conviction.

• R. v. J.K.

  The client was charged with impaired operation, operation at or over 0.08, and assaulting a peace officer. The client initially wanted to plead not guilty, as he was adamant that he did not assault the officer. And it was clear from the disclosure that this was true. Ultimately, the client decided to plead guilty to operation at or over 0.08 to resolve the matter quickly. The remaining two charges against him were withdrawn. He was given a fine in the amount of $1500.00 and a one year driving prohibition.

• R. v. L.L.

  The client was charged with impaired operation. She chose to plead not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. The trial proceeded as scheduled. After the witnesses had been called, the crown announced that she intended to stay the charge, as she felt the trial had not gone well. This was discussed in court and the crown was persuaded to withdraw the charge instead.

• R. v. G.E.

  The client was charged with trafficking in property under $5000 and possession of property under $5000. The matter was set down for ECR discussions and the crown was convinced to refer the matter to the alternative measures program. The client successfully completed the requirements of the program, which included making a charitable donation and composing an essay about what he had learned from this experience. The matter was then withdrawn on the next court date.

• R. v. M.F.

  The client was initially charged with criminal harassment. She was later charged again with three breaches. Extensive ECR discussions were had with the crown surrounding these two files. The charges stemmed from a neighborly dispute and should likely have been civil matters. Eventually the crown agreed to a one year peace bond, with specific conditions, and the charges against the client were withdrawn.

• R. v. D.R.

  The client was charged with sexual assault, sexual exploitation of a young person when in a position of trust, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual interference. He pleaded not guilty and the matter was down for a preliminary hearing. At the prelim, after discussions with the crown, he agreed there was not much to go on, and that at most it was an assault. The crown offered a 6 month peace bond, which the client accepted. The charges were then stayed.

• R. v. R.P

  The client was charged with trafficking. It was an indictable matter. He pleaded not guilty and the matter was set for a preliminary hearing, to be followed by a trial with a Court of Queen's Bench judge sitting alone. On the day of the prelim, counsel had discussions, which resulted in the client re-electing to be tried by a provincial court judge. The crown amended the charge to simple possession and proceeded summarily. The client pleaded guilty to this amended charge and received a 12 month conditional discharge.

• R. v. B.R.

  The client was charged with operation of a motor vehicle while prohibited. He pleaded guilty and, though the crown was seeking an incarceration period of 30 days, he ended up receiving a fine in the amount of $1500.00.

• R. v. J.G.

  The client was charged with unauthorized possession of a firearm, carrying a concealed weapon, and two counts of careless use of a firearm. The client attended counseling and also met with a psychologist to discuss the events that led to the charges. After lengthy discussions with the crown, after everything the client had done to address his issues, she was willing to withdraw the charges on the condition that a five year Order for Prohibition pursuant to s.111 (weapons prohibition) be entered. The client avoided any criminal conviction being entered on his record, which was important given his dual citizenship with the United States.

• R. v. Y.L.

  The client was charged with first degree murder and three counts of accessory after the fact. Because the crown chose to direct indict on the matter, it proceeded directly to Queen's Bench. The client entered a not guilty plea and dates for a judge and jury trial were set. Prior to trial commencing, there were two weeks of pre-trial motions. At the end of these motions, much of the evidence pertaining to the client was excluded, ensuring that it would not be heard by the jury. At the end of the trial, the jury came back with a guilty verdict on all four counts. The matter was adjourned for sentencing. When the judge gave his decision, the client received an automatic life sentence with parole eligibility in 25 years on the first degree murder charge, then a global sentence of 7 years for the three accessory after the fact charges (less 1296 days of pre-trial custody). The crown also sought ancillary orders regarding DNA and weapons prohibitions.

• R. v. C.S.

  The client was charged with assault with a weapon, assaulting a peace officer with a weapon, and resisting arrest. After obtaining some background from the client regarding his mental health history, the crown was persuaded to refer the matter to the mental health diversion program. Once the client completed the requirements of the program, the charges against him were withdrawn.

• R. v. J.C.

  The client was charged with assault causing bodily harm. The charge stemmed from a domestic dispute, which both husband and wife were engaged in. The complainant later advised that she wished to recant her statement, as she was quite intoxicated and didn't remember many details about the night. Despite this, the crown was not willing to withdraw the charge outright. However, with attendance at and completion of counseling, they would reconsider. The matter was adjourned for a few months to allow the client time to do this. Once he had completed the counseling sessions and provided proof of such, the charge against him was withdrawn.

• R. v. H.C.

  The client was charged with multiple charges in relation to credit and debit card thefts, fraud, unlawful possession of identification documents. The client had a related record for which he had received an 18 month sentence of incarceration. The crown agreed to a significantly reduced sentence for the over thirty criminal charges the client had. The total sentence for this second round of offences was 18 months incarceration.

• R. v. A.A.

  The client was charged with a series of very serious offences stemming from the police stopping the vehicle the client was in, and finding a loaded firearm. The allegation was serious enough that the client was facing a penitentiary term of imprisonment. After receiving disclosure and completing a comprehensive assessment, I approached the prosecutor. After the prosecutor reviewed the file, they agreed that the charges against the client should be dropped entirely. The client walked away with out a conviction. The issues on the file were that the crown would not have been able to establish that the client possessed the firearm.

• R. v. R.S.

  The client was charged with several domestic offences. The offence allegations were that of harassment, threats, and breaches of no contact orders (bail release conditions). The client did not have counsel at first, and then hired me to try to get him out of jail. I was successful in doing so. The client was released the same day we dealt with his pleas and the matter was fully resolved.

• R. v. D.M.

  The client was charged with domestic assault and immediately, the police instituted a no contact provision with the client's spouse. I was able to have that condition amended to allow for contact.

• R. v. A.A.

  This was a matter that had proceeded with a preliminary inquiry and the complainant testified. It was clear from my cross-examination that the complainant had consented to the sexual interaction between herself and the client. Despite that, the crown proceeded with the matter and a trial date was set. I was able to convince the crown that it was clear after the preliminary inquiry that there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction given the complainant's testimony on the issue of consent at the preliminary inquiry. Ultimately, the crown agreed with my assessment, and the sexual assault charge against my client was stayed - the matter was dropped. The client was left without a conviction and without a criminal record.

• R. v. K.S.

  The client was charged with assault stemming from a historical allegation. The complainant made the allegation in the midst of an ongoing family law dispute. The charge was laid outside of the six month window for which a summary conviction matter could be laid, so the crown would have had to elect to proceed by indictment, for this very minor matter. With that, and with the fact that it was not the complainant who reported the allegation, I approached the crown to negotiate for a withdrawal of the matter. After reviewing my reasons why the domestic assault charge should be withdrawn, the crown agreed, and it was withdrawn. This left the client with no criminal record, and no conviction.

• R. v. M.C.

  The client was charged with theft from an employer. The the matter was set for trial. The client had a very strong defence available, and we were prepared to run the trial and to put forward the defence. However, the crown elected to withdraw the charge after restitution was forwarded to the complainant. The charge of theft was therefore withdrawn, and the client was left with no conviction, and no criminal record.

• R. v. J.K.

  The client was charged with impaired operation, operation at or over 0.08, and assaulting a peace officer. The client initially wanted to plead not guilty, as he was adamant that he did not assault the officer. And it was clear from the disclosure that this was true. Ultimately, the client decided to plead guilty to operation at or over 0.08 to resolve the matter quickly. The remaining two charges against him were withdrawn. He was given a fine in the amount of $1500.00 and a one year driving prohibition.

• R. v. L.L.

  The client was charged with impaired operation. She chose to plead not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. The trial proceeded as scheduled. After the witnesses had been called, the crown announced that she intended to stay the charge, as she felt the trial had not gone well. This was discussed in court and the crown was persuaded to withdraw the charge instead.

• R. v. G.E.

  The client was charged with trafficking in property under $5000 and possession of property under $5000. The matter was set down for ECR discussions and the crown was convinced to refer the matter to the alternative measures program. The client successfully completed the requirements of the program, which included making a charitable donation and composing an essay about what he had learned from this experience.  The matter was then withdrawn on the next court date.

• R. v. M.H.

  The client was charged with assault with a weapon and uttering threats. The crown was approached to see if they would be willing to resolve the matter by way of a peace bond. Given that the client had a prior one in 2016, they were not inclined to do so. However, they did agree to an informal resolution. The client was required to attend counselling and provide proof of completion of the sessions. Once she had done so, the charges against her were withdrawn.

• R. v. S.M.

  The client was charged on three different dockets. The charges included assault, assault with a weapon and uttering threats on the first. The second was for two counts of mischief, two counts mischief to property under $5000, and failing to comply. The last was for failing to attend. When we received his legal aid certificate, the client was in custody. He pleaded guilty to assault, one count of mischief to property under $5000, failing to comply, and failing to appear. The remaining charges were withdrawn. He had 14 days of pre-trial custody and was released on time served.

• R. v. M.F.

  The client was initially charged with criminal harassment. She was later charged again with three breaches. Extensive ECR discussions were had with the crown surrounding these two files. The charges stemmed from a neighbourly dispute and should likely have been civil matters. Eventually the crown agreed to a one year peace bond, with specific conditions, and the charges against the client were withdrawn.