SUCCESSFUL CASE DECISIONS

• R. v. J.C.

  The client was charged with driving while disqualified and failing to appear. I met with the crown to negotiate a resolution of the matter by way of a withdrawal of the charges. The crown agreed that it was not in the public interest to prosecute the client, and the charges were withdrawn.

• R. v. S.T.

  The client was charged with impaired driving, driving over 0.08 and speeding. The client pleaded guilty to driving over 0.08 and the other two charges were withdrawn.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. H.W.

  The client was charged with failing or refusing to comply with a demand. The client entered a pleaded guilty and received a fine plus a one year driving prohibition, with eligibility for the interlock after three months.

• R. v. A.N.

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. He pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. I filed a notice to challenge the charges on the basis that my client'’s rights were violated by the officers. The day before the trial, the crown stayed the charges on the basis of violations of my client'’s rights, along with issues relating to one of the officers involved.

• R. v. L.S.

  The client was charged with dangerous driving and failing to remain at the scene of an accident, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. The crown prosecutor assigned to the file took the view that the allegation was serious, as it involved a '“road rage'” type of incident. I had the client complete a number of tasks for me, and then met with the prosecutor to try to negotiate a resolution that would leave my client without a criminal record and without a conviction. I was successful in doing so, and my client plead guilty to a lesser included offence under the Traffic Safety Act of leaving the scene as a registered owner. This left my client without any demerits, and without a criminal charge or conviction.

• R. v. R.C.

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. I extensively reviewed the file with a view to determining what the triable issues were for the impaired driving and over 0.08 charges. I determined that there were a number of issues that could result in my client being found not guilty. I took instructions from the client to plead not guilty and to set the matter for trial. I prepared for the trial including legal research, arguments, and preparations for cross-examination of the police officers. On the trial date, the crown withdrew both charges against my client as they realized they did not have a reasonable likelihood of conviction. The charges were both dropped against my client, leaving him without a criminal record and without a conviction.

• R. v. S.F.

  The client was charged with refusing to comply with a demand for a roadside breath sample in relation to an impaired driving investigation. After reviewing the file, I determined that there were a number of issues that could be raised at trial. The client elected to plead not guilty, and the matter was set down for trial. Prior to the trial date, I filed a notice with the court alleging my client'’s rights were violated. The crown received a copy of the notice and advised me ahead of the trial date that they agreed with my arguments and would be dropping the charge. My client was left with a clean record and no conviction.

• R. v. S.C.

  The client was charged with impaired driving (DUI) and refusing or failing to comply with a breath demand. I reviewed the evidence (disclosure) against the client. I determined that there were a number of issues that could result in a not guilty finding. The client decided to plead not guilty, and we set the matter for trial. Prior to the trial date, I filed a notice with the court alleging my client'’s rights were violated. The crown prosecutor received a copy of the notice and on the trial date, agreed to resolve the matter by way of a plea to a traffic ticket instead, leaving my client without a criminal charge and without a criminal conviction. The impaired driving charge and the refusal charges were withdrawn.

• R. v. A.K.

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. I reviewed the file and took instructions from the client to enter a not guilty plea and to set the matter for trial. I prepared for the trial, including legal research and arguments, and preparations for cross-examination of the police officers. On the date of trial, the crown dropped both the impaired driving charge (DUI) and the over 0.08 charge. The client was left without a criminal record and without a conviction.

• R. v. R.B.

  The client was charged with refusing to comply with a demand for a breath sample as a result of an impaired driving (DUI)/over 0.08 investigation. After reviewing the file, I received instructions from the client on the basis of my legal advice to plead not guilty and set the matter for trial. I prepared for the trial, including conducting legal research and filing a Charter notice relating to my client'’s rights being violated. On the day of trial, the crown agreed that there were issues with their case, and that my client'’s rights were violated. The crown agreed to drop the charge, leaving my client without a criminal record and without a conviction.

• R. v. K.F.

  The client was charged with impaired driving (DUI), driving over 0.08 and traffic tickets. The client provided me with instructions to proceed with a guilty plea to the driver over 0.08. The client received a fine and a driving prohibition. The impaired driving charge was dropped, as were the traffic tickets.

• R. v. S.S

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. After reviewing the file and providing the client with legal advice, I took instructions from the client to enter a plea of not guilty and to set the matter for trial. I prepared for the trial, including conducting legal research, and preparations for cross-examination of the police witnesses. On the day of trial, I was able to negotiate with the crown prosecutor to have the charges of impaired driving and over 0.08 withdrawn (dropped). My client was left without a criminal record and without convictions.

• R. v. N.E.

  The client was charged with two counts of failing to comply and one of carrying a concealed weapon. The matter was set for trial. On the day of trial, he plead guilty to carrying a concealed weapon and one of the failure to comply charges. The remaining failure to comply was withdrawn. He received a conditional discharge and 20 hours of community service for a matter where the prospect of a conviction was great.

• R. v. J.M.

  The client was charged with possessing a firearm contrary to a prohibition order and the careless use/storage of a firearm. The crown initially sought a significant jail sentence because the client had been bound by a prohibition order relating to firearms, and this was a matter where the firearm was discharged. Ms. Karpa convinced the crown to agree to refer the client to the mental health diversion program, and upon successful completion of the program, the charges against him were withdrawn.

• R. v. M.L.

  The client was charged with mischief and possessing a weapon. Initially the crown declined to refer the matter to the Alternative Measures program. Ms. Karpa had the client complete some tasks and presented the crown with the information. On the basis of that, the crown agreed to refer the matter to Alternative Measures and the crown withdrew the charges upon successful completion of the program.

• R. v. S.N.

  The client was served with notice of a prohibition and forfeiture of firearms hearing. Ms. Karpa was able to have the matter withdrawn and the firearms returned to the client.

• R. v. J.A.

  The client was charged with two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual interference with a minor. This was a very complex matter involving voluntariness of statements. Ms. Karpa painstakingly researched the law, and was able to discuss the matter with the crown and convinced the crown to resolve the matter by way of a peace bond and the charges were withdrawn.

• R. v. R.R.

  The client was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference. The client plead guilty to the lesser and included offence of simple assault. The sexual interference charge was withdrawn. The client received a three-year conditional discharge with conditions to not contact the complainant, complete 40 hours of community service, and to attend counselling. No conviction.

• R. v. S.G.

  The client was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference and assault with a weapon. The matter proceeded to a preliminary inquiry, and then to trial. At trial, the client plead not guilty. I worked tirelessly to ensure that the client received the best possible defence. Upon completion of the trial, the client was found NOT GUILTY. No conviction. No criminal record.

• R. v. F.J.

  Client was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference with a minor. The matter proceeded to a preliminary inquiry. Thereafter, the client plead not guilty and the matter proceeded to trial. I worked diligently in preparation of both the preliminary. I completed throughout research and preparation for trial. After my cross-examination of the complainant, and after the direct evidence from my client, the judge was left with a reasonable doubt and the client was found NOT GUILTY.

• R. v. B.M.

  The client was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching. The client gave instructions to Ms. Karpa plead guilty to sexual interference and the remaining two counts were withdrawn. The crown sought a sentence of 3 years, while Ms. Karpa sought a sentence of 2 years’ incarceration.

• R. v. M.K.

  The client was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching and touching for a sexual purpose. Ms. Karpa reviewed the file entirely, and determined that there was, in her opinion, no reasonable likelihood of conviction on one set of counts. In addition, Ms. Karpa determined that there was lost evidence, thus opening up the possibility of a stay of proceedings. Ms. Karpa discussed the matter with the crown, and the charges were all stayed. No criminal record. No conviction.

• R. v. G.F.

  The client was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference and failing to comply. The client plead not guilty and the matter was set for a preliminary inquiry. At the prelim, the crown withdrew the failure to comply charge. The matter was eventually set down for trial. Upon conclusion of the trial, the judge found the client not guilty on all of the sexual offences.

• R. v. J.L.

  The client was charged with three counts of sexual assault. He plead not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. The crown was open to discussions about resolving the matter, and the client ended up with a peace bond for one year. All the charges were withdrawn.

• R. v. B.P.

  The client was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference. He plead guilty to sexual interference and received a jail term of 2 years, plus 18 months’ probation with conditions. The crown had sought a 3-year jail sentence, but the judge agreed with Ms. Karpa's position.