SUCCESSFUL CASE DECISIONS

• 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 counselling 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 counselling, they would reconsider. The matter was adjourned for a few months to allow the client time to do this. Once he had completed the counselling 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. C.B.

  The client was charged on three different dockets. On one docket he was charged with assault causing bodily harm, extortion, mischief endangering life, and uttering threats. On the other two he was charged with failing to comply on one and failing to appear on the other. He pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats, mischief, and failing to appear. The other charges were withdrawn. He received a sentence of 12 months incarceration, followed by 18 months of probation. Since he had been in custody, he had some pre-trial credit, which meant he had four months left to serve. There were also some ancillary orders (primary DNA and s. 109 prohibition) imposed.

• R. v. U.M.

  The client was charged with assault with a weapon. The client pleaded guilty and the matter was set down for sentencing. A pre-sentence report was ordered, which outlined some of the neurological issues the client faced after brain surgery. This was helpful because even though he had two prior convictions for assault, he was able to avoid a jail sentence, as the judge factored this in to her decision. He was given a 12 month conditional sentence order and 12 months of probation.

• R. v. G.H.

  The client was charged with assault with a weapon. He pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. On the day of trial, the complainant did not show up. The crown also hadn’t subpoenaed all the officers to appear as witnesses. As such, the charge was stayed. The client avoided having another conviction on his record.

• R. v. D.P.

  The client was charged with failing to obey a yield sign before entering a highway. Unfortunately a fatality occurred and he was charged on a long information. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a 60 day driving suspension, along with a $1500.00 fine.

• R. v. P.C.

  The client was charged with impaired operation and operation at or over 0.08. The client pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. Upon reviewing the disclosure, it was clear there were issues during the police officer’s dealings with the client. A charter notice was filed regarding these breaches. The notice was successful in convincing the crown there were triable issues and she entered a stay of proceedings on the file.

• R. v. M.L.

  The client was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm, having a blood alcohol level over the legal limit causing bodily harm, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm. He pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm and the other two counts were withdrawn. He received a sentence of incarceration for a period of 8 months and a 2 year driving prohibition. As he had already been without his license since the time of the incident, he was left with 12 months and 1 week before it could be reinstated.

• R. v. R.M.

  The client was charged with impaired operation and operation at or over 0.08. The client pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the judge adjourned to the following morning, at which time she would give her decision. The client was found guilty of operation at or over 0.08 and the impaired charge was withdrawn. He received a fine in the amount of $1500.00 and a driving prohibition for one year.

• R. v. M.H.

  The client was charged with possession of a forged document, fraud under $5000, possession of drugs, breaching a CSO condition, failing to comply with a probation order, and failing to attend court. He pleaded guilty to uttering a forged document and possession of drugs. The remaining charges were withdrawn. The client was in custody at the time of his guilty plea. He was given a 15 day global sentence and 18 months probation on his previous conviction.

• R. v. C.M.

  The client was charged with mischief to property under $5000. After having discussions with the crown, counsel were able to reach a resolution. The client paid restitution to the complainant and the charge against him was withdrawn.

• R. v. A.B.

  The client was charged with uttering threats. Following ECR discussions with the crown, an informal resolution was agreed on. The matter was adjourned for three months and as long as the client did not breach the terms of his release, the charge would be withdrawn. At the end of the three month period, nothing had arisen, and the crown withdrew the charge as expected.

• R. v. L.M.

  The client was charged with uttering threats. After ECR discussions with the crown, they agreed to refer the matter to the mental health diversion program. Once it was established that the client was a fit, the matter was adjourned for her to complete the requirements of the program. Upon doing so, the charge against her was withdrawn.