SUCCESSFUL CASE DECISIONS

• R. v. A.W.

  The client was charged with theft over $5000, theft under $5000, breaking and entering, possession (drugs), failing to comply, failing to appear and failing to attend for ID. After meeting with the crown to negotiate a resolution of the matter, the client pleaded guilty to theft under, failing to appear and theft of a motor vehicle (instead of theft over). The remaining charges against the client were withdrawn. The client had a lengthy criminal record. The client was sentenced to time served so there was no further incarceration.

• R. v. R. v. J.F.

  The client was charged with theft under $5000. I successful negotiation withdrawal of the charge upon the return of the items to the complainant through the police. The client avoided a criminal record/conviction.

• R. v. R. v. S.V.

  The client was charged with possession of stolen property over $5000 (motor vehicle), using a forged document and having no insurance. The client pleaded guilty to the possession charge and the other two counts were withdrawn. The crown initially requested the judge sentence the client to a term of probation which would have left the client with a criminal conviction. I urged the crown to agree to a conditional discharge, which they eventually did. The judge agreed to the conditional discharge, and the client was spared a conviction on their record.

• R. v. C.M.

  The client was charged with theft under $5000. The file was referred to Alternative Measures and was withdrawn after successful completion of the requirements.

• R. v. D.B.

  The client was charged with possession of stolen property under $5000 (license plate). I met with the crown to resolve the matter, and the crown agreed to do so by withdrawing the charge against the client.

• R. v. S.L.

  The client was charged with possession of stolen property, dangerous driving, failing to stop vehicle and failing to comply. The client was further charged in a different jurisdiction for theft of a motor vehicle, failing to appear and failing to comply. The client pleaded not guilty to the possession of stolen property et al charges and they were set down for trial. At trial her matters from both jurisdictions were before the court. The client pleaded guilty to an amended charge of possession of stolen property under $5000 and all the rest were withdrawn. As the client was in custody at the time of trial, the client received time served.

• R. v. N.G.

  The client was charged with mischief for damaging a colleague'’s property. I was successful in having the matter referred to the Alternative Measures Program. Once the client completed the requirements, the charge was withdrawn, and I sent a letter to the police requesting the destruction of the client'’s fingerprints and identification information.

• R. v. L.M.

  The client was charged with three counts of breaching a probation order that the client was sentenced to in relation to fraud charges. The pleaded guilty to two of the counts and the third was withdrawn. The client received a sentence of 14 days in jail given his prior related record for which the client had received a lengthier sentence than the one I was able to secure for the client.

• R. v. M.H.

  The client was charged with multiple offences including robbery, assault with a weapon, assault, theft under $5000, failing to appear for ID and failing to appear. The matter involved a serious allegation as the complainant to the robbery suffered injuries. Despite that, the matter was resolved by way of a guilty plea to a lesser included offence to robbery, being assault with a weapon. All other charges were withdrawn, and the client received time served.

• R. v. L.W.

  The client was charged with possession of drugs (methamphetamine), two counts of possession of stolen property under $5000.00, and four counts of failing to comply with release conditions (bail). The client elected to plead guilty to the possession of drugs and possession of stolen property under $5000.00. The client was sentenced to time served. The remaining charges against the client were dropped.

• R. v. D.L.

  The client was charged with two counts of trafficking cocaine, and possession of property obtained by crime. This was a dial-a-dope drug investigation file. The police initiated the investigation due to informant information, and then started conducting surveillance. After a lengthy investigation, the police charged my client. I reviewed the disclosure and determined that there were a number of triable issues. The client elected to have a trial at the Court of Queen'’s Bench sitting with a judge alone, and to have a preliminary inquiry at the Provincial Court. A trial I argued that the police violated my client'’s rights pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that the evidence should be excluded on that basis. In the alternative, I argued that the crown was unable to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge agreed with my arguments and the client was found not guilty of all charges, trafficking cocaine and possession of property obtained by crime. My client was left with no criminal record and no conviction.

• R. v. D.M.

  The client was charged with three counts of trafficking drugs (cocaine) and possession of property obtained by crime under $5000.00. The police had conducted a lengthy investigation and were looking to prosecute both my client and the co-accused. On the basis of my review of the disclosure, I approached the crown prosecutor to discuss having the charges against my client withdrawn entirely. I was of the view that the crown would not be in a position to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor agreed, and all charges were dropped. My client was left with no criminal record and no conviction.

• R. v. J.H.

  The client was charged with possession of drugs (marihuana). The crown agreed to refer the matter to the Alternative Measures Program. Once the client completed the requirements of the program, the charge of possession of drugs was withdrawn.

• R. v. K.K.

  The client was charged with three counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of body armor. The charges were laid after a complex drug investigation. Upon receiving disclosure, I determined that there was likely no basis for the crown to continue with the prosecution against the client. On that basis, I approached the crown to ask them to consider dropping all of the charges. The crown agreed, and all charges were dropped. The matter was concluded successfully so that the client did not have to face potential immigration issues.

• R. v. E.K.

  The client was charged with possession of drugs in an amount that normally would exceed the qualifications for the Alternative Measures Program. Despite that, after meeting with the crown to encourage resolution by way of diversion, the crown finally agreed. The client was tasked with completing community service hours, and upon doing so, the charge was dropped. If the client had received a conviction, the client would have lost their employment.

• R. v. K.W.

  The client was charged with failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. After extensive discussions with the traffic crown, the crown was persuaded to accept the client'’s plea to the lesser and included offence of failing to obey a traffic device. Subsequently, the client only lost two demerits and received a $400.00 fine.

• R. v. J.E.

  The client was charged with possession of drugs after a lengthy police investigation regarding a co-accused. Upon reviewing disclosure, it was apparent that there was no evidence to support the prosecution. After approaching the crown to resolve the matter, they agreed to do so, and the charge was withdrawn.

• R. v. C.K.

  This was a youth matter. The client was charged with criminal negligence in operating a motor vehicle causing bodily harm and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm. The client pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. Upon conclusion of the trial, the judge adjourned for decision, and later acquitted the client of both charges.

• R. v. D.T

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. The client pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. At trial, the crown had not subpoenaed the breath technician, however still planned to run the trial for the impaired. After discussions with the crown, they were convinced to withdraw both charges. The client avoided a criminal record and was able to get his licence back forthwith.

• R. v. T.L.

  The client was charged with driving while unauthorized. After ECR discussions with the traffic crown, they agreed to accept a guilty plea to driving without a licence. The client was given a fine and time to pay.

• R. v. S.W.

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. The client pleaded guilty to driving over 0.08 and the impaired charge was withdrawn. A curative discharge application was made and was successful. The client walked away with no conviction on his record.

• R. v. D.A.

  The client was charged with impaired driving, driving over 0.08 and transporting liquor in a vehicle within easy access of an occupant. He pleaded guilty to driving over 0.08 and the other two charges against him were withdrawn. He received a fine plus a victim fine surcharge and a one year driving prohibition, with eligibility for the interlock after three months.

• R. v. J.C.

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. The client was also charged with a traffic offence of operating a motor vehicle with an expired license. The client pleaded guilty to driving over 0.08 and the other charge, plus the traffic matter, were withdrawn. The client received a fine plus a victim fine surcharge and a one year driving prohibition with eligibility for the interlock after three months.

• R. v. D.C.

  The client was charged with impaired driving, driving over 0.08 and failing to stop at a stop sign. The client pleaded not guilty and the matter was set for trial. Prior to trial, I filed a notice alleging my client's rights were violated. The week before the trial, the crown agreed to drop the criminal charges. The client was free to go and get his driver'’s license back the next date. The client thus had no conviction and no criminal record.

• R. v. P.A.

  The client was charged with impaired driving and refusing to comply with a demand. He pleaded guilty to the impaired charge and the refusal charge was withdrawn. The client was sentenced to a fine plus a victim fine surcharge and a one year driving prohibition, with eligibility for the interlock after three months.