SUCCESSFUL CASE DECISIONS

• R. v. M.S.

  The client was charged with sexual assault. He plead not guilty and the matter was set down for a preliminary inquiry. Ms. Karpa determined that there were significant issues with the crown'’s disclosure, and ultimately convinced the crown to withdraw the charge outright. No criminal record. No conviction.

• R. v. S.M.

  The client was charged with three counts of assault. The client was unaware of the charges until 2017 when she found out there were arrest warrants on the system. Ms. Karpa met with the crown and made an argument that the charges should be dropped. The crown agreed and withdrew the charges. No criminal record. No conviction.

• R. v. G.E.

  The client was charged with criminal harassment. Prior to being hired, he had already set the matter for trial, as he said he was not guilty. The client provided documentation for an alibi notice and with that Ms. Karpa was able to secure a peace bond for the client.

• R. v. D.B.

  The client was charged with two counts of assault. Although not agreeable at first, once Ms. Karpa was able to show that her client was making efforts to get counselling for anger management, the crown agreed to refer the matter to the alternative measures program. Upon completion of the program, the charges against the client were withdrawn. Given the nature of his employment, it was an important outcome, as his career could have been affected by a criminal record.

• R. v. P.M.

  The client was charged with mischief under the Criminal Code and unruly or dangerous behaviour under the Aeronautics Act. Ms. Karpa had both sets of charges dropped.

• R. v. R.C.

  The client was charged with assault. Originally the matter was not referable to Alternative Measures, but Ms. Karpa met with the crown who ultimately agreed to the referral. Once the requirements of Alternative Measures were met, the charge was withdrawn.

• R. v. C.S.

  The client was charged with assault. Originally the crown had not screened the file for Alternative Measures, but then agreed to do so once Ms. Karpa reviewed the matter with the crown. The matter was referred to Alternative Measures and once the requirements were met, the charge was withdrawn.

• R. v. D.B.

  The client was charged with assault. Upon attending counselling and paying restitution to the complainant, the charge was withdrawn.

• R. v. T.Y.

  The client was charged with assault. After discussions with the crown, they decided not to proceed with the charge as there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction. As a result, the charge was withdrawn.

• R. v. I.W.

  The client was charged with criminal harassment. After discussions with the crown, the crown agreed that it was not in the public interest to prosecute this file. The charge was therefore withdrawn.

• R. v. T.W.

  The client was charged with communications harassment. After successful completion of counselling and providing proof of same, the crown agreed to withdraw the charge.

• R. v. B.T.

  The client was charged with two counts of assault. He was required to attend counselling and upon completion of the sessions and providing proof of it, the crown agreed to withdraw the charges.

• R. v. M.A.

  The client was arrested and remanded on multiple charges including assault with a weapon, assault, uttering threats, failing to comply with a protection order and failing to appear. A bail hearing was set, at which time he plead guilty, and was released with time served.

• R. v. N.M.

  The client was charged with assault, uttering threats and mischief. The file was referred to Alternative Measures and upon completing the requirements of the program, the charges against him were withdrawn. No conviction. No criminal record.

• R. v. J.T.

  The client was charged with assault. The crown agreed to an informal peace bond, wherein he was required to attend counselling. Upon completion of the sessions and providing proof of it, the crown agreed to withdraw the charge.

• R. v. J.E.

  The client was charged with assault, forcible confinement and uttering threats. The client plead not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. On the day of trial, the crown offered a peace bond. The charges were dropped. No conviction. No criminal record.

• R. v. T.S.

  The client was charged with assault. The client was directed to attend counselling and upon completion of the Sheriff King program, the charge against him was withdrawn.

• R. v. J.J.

  The client was charged with assaulting a police officer with a weapon and also ticketed for making a noise that disturbs another. The file was referred to Alternative Measures and upon completion of the requirements, the charges were withdrawn. Originally the crown was not in agreement with the referral, but Ms. Karpa made compelling arguments which convinced the crown to agree. No conviction. No criminal record.

• R. v. T.A.

  The client was charged with assault. Ms. Karpa received and reviewed extensive disclosure. The disclosure clearly outlined issues with the credibility of the complainant. Ms. Karpa brought that to the crown'’s attention, and asked the crown to withdraw the charge. The crown agreed, and the charge was withdrawn.

• R. v. R.M.

  The client was charged with assault causing bodily harm. The crown agreed to withdraw the charge upon reviewing supporting documentation that Ms. Karpa had the client produce. No conviction. No criminal record.

• R. v. C.B.

  The client was charged with assault. The file was referred to Alternative Measures and was withdrawn after successful completion of the requirements.

• R. v. B.M.

  The client was charged with assault, unlawful confinement and resisting a PO. After requesting the crown review the matter regarding whether or not there was a reasonable likelihood of conviction, the crown agreed with Ms. Karpa'’s assessment and withdrew the charge outright.

• R. v. A.M.

  The client was charged with robberies. Ms. Karpa successfully negotiated a plea deal wherein the client plead to reduced charges and received a conditional sentence order, thus avoiding a penitentiary jail term.

• R. v. B.C.

  The client was charged with a domestic assault. The matter was referred to mental health diversion and upon completion of the program, the charge was withdrawn.

• R. v. N.E.

  The client was charged with robbery. After a lengthy discussion with the crown, and much legal research and preparation for a trial, the crown agreed to a plea to simple assault at the last minute. The client received a short term of probation.