SUCCESSFUL CASE DECISIONS

• R. v. R.S.

  The client was charged with theft under $5000. The matter was referred to the Alternative Measures Program and upon completion of the requirements, the charge was successfully withdrawn.

• R. v. K.L.

  The client was charged with possession of drugs (marihuana). The client had been in a vehicle with several other people. I reviewed the file and determined that some of the evidence (disclosure) was missing. I made a request for the disclosure. The crown was unable to produce the disclosure, and as such, I convinced the crown to withdraw the charge.

• R. v. C.N.

  The client was charged with drug related offences: possession and production of hash oil. Ms. Karpa reviewed the file and determined that there were issues with the crown'’s case. The crown agreed to refer the matter to alternative measures, and upon successful completion of the program, the charges were withdrawn.

• R. v. C.V.

  The client was charged with trafficking and possession of drugs. There were multiple issues with the investigation that Ms. Karpa determined. Ms. Karpa convinced the crown to agree to a plea to a reduced charge of simple possession. Ms. Karpa was able to convince the court to grant the client an absolute discharge. No conviction.

• R. v. A.B.

  The client was charged with production of a substance and possession (drugs). Ms. Karpa reviewed the file in depth and realized that there was significant outstanding disclosure. Ms. Karpa made several requests over the course of several months, but the investigators did not produce the disclosure to the crown. The crown therefore agreed to withdraw all charges. This would have been a serious matter with serious consequences for the client. No conviction. No criminal record.

• R. v. J.J.

  The client was charged with possession of drugs, obstructing/resisting arrest and escaping custody while he was still a youth. The following year he was charged with a failure to appear. Ms. Karpa convinced the crown to withdraw all charges against the client.

• R. v. C.T.

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. He also received two tickets as a result of this incident. He plead guilty to driving over 0.08. In doing so the impaired charge and the tickets were withdrawn. He received a fine, as well as a victim fine surcharge, and a one-year driving prohibition.

• R. v. V.B.

  The client was charged with impaired driving, driving over 0.08 and dangerous driving. He plead guilty to driving over 0.08. The other two charges were withdrawn. He received a fine, as well as a victim fine surcharge, and a one-year driving prohibition. Jail time was avoided.

• R. v. J.L.

  The client was charged with speeding (50km over the limit). The client would have had a suspended license with a guilty plea to that offence. Instead, I was able to negotiate with the crown to have the charge reduced so that the client walked away with a fine, and their license intact.

• R. v. J.H.

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. I reviewed the file and determined that during the check stop there were breaches of the client's rights. The client entered a not guilty plea and the matter was set for trial. I filed a notice with the court to allege that my client'’s rights were violated. After filing that notice, the crown stayed the charges. The client was able to get their license back within a few days, and avoided a conviction and a driving prohibition. No record. No conviction.

• R. v. D.K.

  The client was charged with impaired driving and failure to provide a breath sample. He plead guilty to the impaired charge and the failure to provide charge was withdrawn. A curative discharge application was made by Ms. Karpa, and with Ms. Karpa'’s written brief, the crown and the judge agreed to the discharge. No conviction.

• R. v. S.F.

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. I reviewed the file in detail, and determined that there were multiple violations of the client'’s rights. The client entered a not guilty plea, and the matter was set for trial. I filed a notice with the court to allege that the client's rights were violated. After filing that notice, the crown withdrew the charges. The client was able to get their license back within a few days, and avoided a conviction and a driving prohibition. No record. No conviction.

• R. v. B.D.

  The client was charged with impaired driving and a failure/refusal to provide a breath sample. The client plead guilty to the impaired charge and the matter was adjourned for a curative discharge application. After Ms. Karpa reviewed the matter with the crown and prepared lengthy written submissions, the crown agreed to the discharge application. The client avoided jail time and ended up with conditions and a finding of guilt but no conviction.

• R. v. D.T.

  The client was charged with dangerous driving and flight from police. This was a very serious allegation, for which the crown was originally seeking a hefty penalty due to the need for general deterrence. However, after much negotiations, the crown was agreeable to withdrawing the flight from police charge, and agreed to a plea to the dangerous driving for a fine.

• R. v. C.B.

  The client was charged with dangerous driving and impaired driving. Ms. Karpa met with the crown and the crown agreed to a plea to a reduced charge driving over 0.08 for a conditional discharge. The dangerous driving charge was withdrawn.

• R. v. D.K.

  The client was charged with impaired driving and failure to provide a breath sample. He plead guilty to the impaired charge and the failure to provide charge was withdrawn. A curative discharge application was made by Ms. Karpa, and with Ms. Karpa's written brief, the crown and the judge agreed to the discharge. No conviction.

• R. v. K.M.

  The client was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. Ms. Karpa negotiated a plea deal where the client would plead guilty to a non-criminal offence: driving without due care and attention. The client received a$500 fine. No criminal record. No conviction.

• R. v. K.M.

  The client was issued a ticket for careless driving. Ms. Karpa negotiated with the crown to resolve the matter with a lesser offence. The client received a fine for the lesser offence. Because the careless driving ticket was avoided, the client did not receive the high demerits associated with that ticket.

• R. v. G.S.

  The client was charged with impaired driving and driving over 0.08. The charge was withdrawn on the basis that Ms. Karpa determined that a breath demand was never read to the accused. Client's license was returned to her on the basis that the charge was withdrawn.

• R. v. E.D.

  The client was charged with theft under $5000, failing to appear for fingerprinting, failing to attend court and being intoxicated in a public place. The client was adamant that this was a case of mistaken identity, as he never lived in Calgary, and was not in the city at the time of the offences. Ms. Karpa was successful in negotiating with the crown on that basis that the charges should be withdrawn.

• R. v. M.M.

  The client was charged with theft under $5000.00, breaking & entering, mischief and trespassing at night. The Crown agreed to refer the matter to the Alternative Measures Program under the guise of it being a lesser included offence of unlawfully in a dwelling house, and the charge was eventually dropped after successful completion of the same.

• R. v. B.C.

  The client was charged with mischief to property under $5000. He plead guilty to the offence and received probation due to a related record.

• R. v. J.D.

  The client was charged with being in possession of stolen property and failing to appear. He plead not guilty and a trial date was set. Ms. Karpa was successful in having all charges withdrawn on the date of trial. No conviction/no criminal record.

• R. v. G.D.

  The client was charged with theft of a motor vehicle. Initially the crown was unwilling to refer the matter to diversion. However, Ms. Karpa provided the crown with information which made them change their mind. The matter was referred to diversion and upon completion of the requirements, the charge was withdrawn.

• R. v. I.C.

  The client was charged with fraud over $5000 and theft over $5000 from an employer. Ms. Karpa worked diligently with the client to show the crown that the allegations were unfounded, and a matter of a civil case versus a criminal case. Normally, this type of matter would garner a sentence of jail if convicted or if found guilty. The matter was withdrawn by the crown after Ms. Karpa met with them and reviewed the detailed documents prepared in support of the client'’s assertions.