R v. O.M.

Charge: Impaired & Refuse Blood Demand

Result: The matter proceeded to trial, however, was resolved midway with a plea to Leave Roadway Not in Safety pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act. This was due to legal issues surrounding an egregious breach of Rights to Counsel and the Right to Re-Consult a Lawyer.

R v P.M.

Charge: Care or Control & Over 80

Result: Client was found intoxicated in the sleeper cabin of the tractor trailer. This matter proceeded to trial. We were able to establish that the back of the tractor trailer is meant to be a living/sleeping quarter, the driver had no intention to drive and there was no risk the vehicle would be set into motion. The court found our client not guilty; the charges were DISMISSED.

R v. A.S.

Charge: Impaired Driving & Over 80

Result: This matter proceeded to trial as there was a legal issue surrounding a breach of Rights to Counsel. The client’s right to counsel of choice was violated when they were not permitted to contact a third party to facilitate counsel of choice. The Judge found the client not guilty and they were ACQUITTED of the charges.

R v. S.S.

Charge: Over 80

Result: This case proceeded to trial and was resolved mid-way through trial with a plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. This was due to issues surrounding a serious breach of Rights to Counsel of Choice and due to delay in the case when trial continuation dates were required. 

R v E.E.

Charge: Distribution of Intimate Images Without Consent

Result: This matter proceeded to trial. There were significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant’s testimony. The court held that our client was not guilty and DISMISSED the charges.

R v K.N.

Charge: Attempt Murder

Result: After a significant amount of negotiation with the Crown, we were able to convince the Crown that they had no reasonable prospect of conviction. As a result the Crown WITHDREW the charges.

R v J.T.

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm

Result: This was a consent fight, the law surrounding consent fights assisted in negotiating a WITHDRAWAL of the charges against our client.

R v A.A.

Charge: Possession Of Property Obtained By Crime

Result: The client went out for drive at night with some friends. The client was sitting in the back seat unaware that they were driving around in an a stolen vehicle. As a result of negotiations with the Crown the charges were withdrawn. 

R v L.D.

Charge: Possession of Prohibited/Restricted Weapon or Device

Results: This matter was resolved through negotiations with the Crown. The client was in possession of a taser which was uncovered as a result of a police search of the vehicle. Due to some potential legal issues with the validity of the search, among other factors, the Crown agreed to WITHDRAW the charges after the client completed some upfront work.

R v K.A.

Charges: Careless Storage Of Firearm, Unauthorized Possession of Firearm, Unauthorized Possession of Prohibited Device or Ammunition, Trafficking in Firearms – Manufacturing, Possession of a Schedule I Substance (CDSA), Uttering Threat (x3), Criminal Harassment (x3)

Result: This case began as strictly a criminal harassment and utter threat case. Police subsequently executed a search warrant on the client’s residence and the further charges were laid. The client was exonerated during the case management stage of the utter threats and criminal harassment charges. We then began focusing our attention on challenging the search warrant to have the evidence obtained as a result of the search excluded. The Garofoli Hearing to challenge the search warrant concluded with the Judge ruling that the client’s Charter rights were violated, and that the violation did warrant exclusion of the evidence located as a result of the execution of the warrant. With that, the Crown invited the Judge to dismiss all the firearm and CDSA counts.