Criminal Defence

Our client was charged with first-degree murder.

The Crown’s allegations were that our client and another individual shot an individual who was armed with a gun while attempting to break into our client’s home.

Over the course of a three-week trial, our office was able to successfully raise the defence of self-defence.

After six hours of deliberation, the Jury ultimately found our client not guilty of the charges.

Our client, along with 3 other co-accused’s, was charged with first-degree murder.

It was alleged by the Crown that our client was one of the individuals who pulled the trigger, causing the death of the victim.

At trial, in front of a Court of Queen’s Bench Justice, we argued that the Crown had a very weak case against our client.

Particularly, there was minimal evidence identifying our client as a perpetrator in this heinous crime.

Our client was ultimately acquitted of the charges.

Our client was charged with manslaughter, aggravated assault, and break and enter after it was alleged that he participated in a planned break and enter with other parties, where a victim was stabbed and killed, and another victim was severely injured.

At trial, the Crown’s theory was that our client participated in the assaults directly, or alternatively, he encouraged the other members of the group to carry out their purpose of assaulting the victims. Our firm was able to successfully argue that, although our client was present during the assaults, he did not actively participate or encourage the assaults. The Court found our client not guilty on all charges.

R. v B.J.N., Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

Our client was charged with unlawful confinement, uttering threats, possession of a weapon and use of a weapon while committing an offence against his common-law partner.

The charges stemmed from an allegation that our client used a firearm and threatened to kill his common-law partner.

Upon being retained, we quickly pointed out substantial issues related to the credibility and reliability of several Crown witnesses.

The charges were ultimately stayed prior to trial and our client was left without a criminal conviction.

Our client was charged with aggravated assault against his spouse after a heated, alcohol-fueled argument ensued between them. The argument began as a result of allegations that our client was seeking the sexual services of another woman to join him and his spouse in sexual activity. The argument got out of control to the point of a physical altercation where our client sustained injuries from the attacks of his spouse. In an effort to defend himself, our client got physical with his spouse. As a result, police attended the residence and arrested our client.

Our firm was retained on the matter. Upon reviewing disclosure, we reached out to the Crown to outline our client’s side of the story and to advocate that our client was acting in self-defence. Prior to trial, the Crown stayed the charges and our client was left without a criminal conviction.

Our client was charged with sexual assault and the distribution of intimate images after he inadvertently posted a video of their sexual encounter on Snapchat. As soon as our client realized he had accidentally posted the video to his Snapchat story, he immediately deleted and removed the video. The Crown took the position that the sexual encounter, as well as the recording of the video, was non-consensual.

At trial, before a Queen’s Bench Justice, we successfully argued that the sexual encounter was consensual, and further, that the Complainant consented to the recording of the video. In addition, in relation to the distribution of an intimate image, we successfully argued that our client inadvertently posted the video. Our client was ultimately acquitted of both charges.

Our client was charged with sexual assault after attending an event with the Complainant. The Crown’s theory of the case was that our client engaged in non-consensual intercourse with the Complainant. Our client insisted that intercourse of any kind did not occur.

At trial, our position was that the Complainant’s evidence was not credible or reliable given that the Complainant gave multiple versions of the details of the allegations.

In addition, we argued that there was a lack of physical evidence to corroborate the allegations. Lastly, our client took the stand at trial and gave evidence, under oath, as to his side of the story. Our client was ultimately acquitted of the charges by a Jury of his peers. He was left with no criminal record.

Our client was charged with sexual assault.  The investigation into our client began when the Complainant contacted police to report that she had been sexually assaulted by our client.  Our client and the Complainant were acquaintances, who had met during their attendance at AA meetings.

Our office was retained by the client very shortly after charges were laid.  We quickly got to work and reviewed the disclosure extensively.  Our client was adamant of his innocence from the beginning, and we were up to the task of putting together a solid and unshakable defence for him.

During the course of a 3-day trial, we were able to establish our client’s innocence.  The Crown argued that the sexual activity was non-consensual.  We put forth our client’s story, through his own testimony, that the sexual activity was in fact, consensual. The Judge ultimately acquitted our client, and he was left without a criminal record.

R v BH, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench

Our client was charged with sexual assault. The main issue at trial was whether the sexual activity between the accused and complainant was consensual.

Our client and the complainant knew each other for a number of years. On one evening, our client and the complainant attended a get-together. Drugs and alcohol were consumed throughout the course of the evening. Our client and the complainant ended the evening in a sexual encounter.

Our client was adamant from the beginning that he truly believed the sexual encounter was consensual. The defence presented to the court was one of “mistaken belief in consent”.

At trial, the main issue in assessing whether the sexual encounter was consensual, or whether our client took reasonable steps to ascertain consent, focused on the credibility of witnesses. At trial, three witnesses were called – the complainant, our client and a mutual friend who was present during the sexual encounter.

After a lengthy trial and arguments, we were able to successfully argue that based on the evidence presented to the court, the Crown did not meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a lack of consent to the sexual activity.

Our client was acquitted on all charges.

R v W.H., Court of Queen’s Bench

Our client was charged with driving while prohibited after he was stopped by police pursuant to a traffic safety stop. It was alleged that at the time of the traffic stop, our client was bound by a 1-year driving suspension due to a prior conviction of a dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.

Our firm was retained on the matter and we quickly reached out to the Crown to point out the weakness of their case against our client. Despite the standard penalty for this offence is 30 days jail, through negotiations with the Crown, the charges against our client were ultimately withdrawn during the docket stage.

Our client was able to avoid a period of incarceration for the offence in question and was left without a criminal conviction for driving while prohibited.

Our client was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and flight from police after being observed travelling at a high rate of speed by police. Police attempted to conduct a traffic stop, however, our client did not stop for the police. As a result, a police chase involving several officers and a police helicopter ensued, where it was reported that our client travelled at extremely high rates of speed and was observed weaving in and out of traffic. Ultimately, our client was arrested through the assistance of a K-9 unit.

Upon being retained, our firm diligently reviewed the disclosure. We were able to identify a number of weaknesses in the Crown’s case against our client. We were able to point out the detriments in the Crown’s case and our client’s criminal charges were withdrawn prior to trial.

Our client was charged with several firearm offences after a traffic stop was conducted by police. These charges included careless use of a firearm, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, possession of a firearm in a motor vehicle, possession of a loaded firearm and possession of an unauthorized firearm.

At the time of our client’s arrest, it seemed as though the Crown had a strong case, as the police had undertaken DNA forensic analysis to prove that our client was the individual in possession of the firearms. However, upon reviewing the disclosure, we became aware that there were issues with the forensic results.

After pointing this out to the Crown, our client’s charges were withdrawn prior to trial.

Our client was charged for discharging a firearm after he discovered an intruder stealing an ATV from his rural property and fired his shotgun in his direction to scare him away.

The intruder suffered significant injuries from the discharge.

Our firm successfully mounted a self-defence argument for the client at trial, where he was ultimately found not guilty of aggravated assault, discharging a firearm with intent to harm, careless use of a firearm and unlawful use of a firearm.

The client received a conditional discharge for possessing a firearm without a licence and he remained free of a criminal record at the conclusion of the file.

Our client was charged with possession of the stolen property after it was alleged that several items were stolen from the Complainant’s home. One of the items stolen included a laptop, which was able to be tracked by police to an area near our client’s residence. The police, believing that our client was the perpetrator, applied for a search warrant, which was issued and allowed police to enter our client’s residence to search for the stolen items.

Upon reviewing the disclosure, it became clear that there were issues with the lawfulness of the search warrant. We quickly pointed this out to the Crown and noted that entering an individual’s home, without requisite grounds, was a severe breach of our client’s Constitutional rights.

The charges were withdrawn prior to trial.

Our client was charged with possession of stolen property of a value exceeding $900,000 after the stolen property was recovered during the execution of search warrants at the client and his family’s residence.

After our firm was retained, we secured his release on bail and engaged in discussions with the Crown as we prepared the file for trial.

Prior to the trial, the charges against our client were stayed by the Crown and our client received no sanction or entry on his criminal record as a result.

A quarter-million dollars worth of synthetic marijuana and a large amount of cash were seized from our client after a search warrant was executed on his home and business, resulting in charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

After lengthy negotiations and arguments, our firm was able to convince the Crown to withdraw all charges. Our office also fought for the return of the cash seized pursuant to civil forfeiture proceedings with the Minister of Justice. Our firm was able to negotiate the return of over $100,000 to our client.

Over $750,000.00 of cash was seized from our client after a search warrant was executed at their residence. Our client was charged with proceeds of crime, amongst other offences.

Additionally, the Minister of Justice initiated a civil forfeiture proceeding against the cash seized. Upon being retained, our firm’s primary focus was addressing the criminal charges.

Upon successfully having the entirety of the criminal charges withdrawn, we immediately responded to the Minster’s claim and sought the return of the money seized. After lengthy proceedings and negotiations with the Minister, we were able to secure the return of approximately $500,000 to our client.

Our client was charged with fraud over $5000 and theft over $5000. The investigation into our client was initiated by her former employer, who made a police complaint alleging that our client had stolen a large sum of money from him.  Our client was an accountant for the complainant for over two years.  It was alleged that over the course of her employment, our client misappropriated funds from her employer.

A police investigation ensued, which involved police obtaining a production order for all the employer’s bank records.  Upon conclusion of the police investigation, it was determined that the amount and discrepancy of unaccounted funds was $168.498.08.

Our office was retained and immediately went to work analyzing the very voluminous disclosure provided by the Crown.  As our client did not have any prior criminal record, it was very important to us to maintain a clean record for her.  After meticulously reviewing the Crown’s case against our client, we began to poke holes in the Crown’s case.  We carefully pointed out numerous gaps in the Crown’s evidence over a series of discussions and negotiations with the Crown.  Ultimately, the Crown stayed the proceedings against our client, roughly a week before trial.  Our client was able to maintain a record free of any convictions.

Our client was charged with fraud over $5000 and use of a forged document after she deposited a forged cheque, provided to her by another individual, into her personal bank account.

Two witnesses were called at trial, one of which was the accused. Our criminal defence team skillfully prepared the accused for testimony, as well as preparing the accused for what was anticipated to be a powerful cross-examination by the Crown Prosecutor.

At trial, we were able to successfully argue that our client did not know that the cheque was a forged document. Our office argued both orally, and provided significant written submissions to the Court, supporting our position.

Our client was able to provide her story to the Court, most importantly, that she had no idea, nor was there any reason for her to be suspicious, that the cheque was forged.

Our client was acquitted on both charges.

R. v D.B.B., Provincial Court of Alberta

Our client was charged with one count of possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and one count of possessing marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.  The charges arose from an incident where our client was a passenger in a vehicle, which was stopped by police.  Prior to the traffic stop, police had received confidential source information that a large amount of drugs were being transported along the route that our client was travelling on. During the traffic stop, police became suspicious and eventually, our client and the driver of the vehicle were arrested. Upon a search of the vehicle, police seized 2,912 grams of marijuana and 268 grams of cocaine.

Our office was retained and quickly got to work mounting a defence for our client.  At trial, we took the position that our client was not in possession of the drugs which were ultimately seized from the vehicle.  We argued that our client did not know that the drugs were hidden in the vehicle, and in the alternative, we argued that our client did not exert any control over the drugs.  Ultimately, the Judge agreed with our position and found that the Crown did not prove that our client had control over the drugs, beyond a reasonable doubt.  Specifically, the Court noted that they were not able to determine whether our client played an active role in the transportation of the drugs, or whether he was a passive participant.  Accordingly, the Court found our client not guilty, and our client was acquitted of all charges.

R. v. R.Q.M, Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories

Our client was charged with possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, as well as possessing proceeds of crime over $5000.  The investigation into our client began when police received confidential source information from 7 different informants, alleging that associates of our client were involved in drug related activity.  The confidential informant information also suggested that drug sales were ongoing at the residence of our client.  Based on the information provided to police, the police applied for and were granted a search warrant for our client’s residence.  During the search of the residence, police seized 58 grams of cocaine.

After reviewing the disclosure, it became apparent that there were multiple issues with the validity of the search warrant.  Specifically, it was our position that the police did not have the proper grounds to obtain the search warrant, based on the lack of credibility and reliability of the confidential informants, as well as a lack of surveillance observations corroborating the information provided by the informants.  At trial, we were able to successfully quash the search warrant, therefore the search of our client’s residence was found to be unlawful.  The items seized from the residence were excluded as evidence from the trial and ultimately our client was acquitted of all charges.

R. v. C.G, Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories

Our client was the primary target of an extensive police investigation, undertaken by the Edmonton Drug and Gang Enforcement Unit after a confidential informant provided a tip to police that our client was trafficking drugs in the Edmonton area. Pursuant to the investigation, our client was arrested for possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking and police obtained a warrant to search the residence associated with our client. The search resulted in the seizure of a substantial amount of cocaine and packaging materials, scales, cutting agent, and cash.

At trial, our firm brought a Charter application to challenge the lawfulness of our client’s arrest and the validity of the search warrant. After a hard-fought battle to protect the Constitutional rights of our client, the Court ultimately found that police did not have the requisite grounds to arrest our client. Additionally, the Court found that the authorization of the search warrant was not valid, and therefore the search of our client’s residence was unlawful. Any evidence that was seized during the search was excluded from the court proceedings. Ultimately, our client was found not guilty of the charges.

R. v I.S.U., Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

Our client was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime over $5000.

After a police investigation, our client was ultimately arrested and searched with resulted in the seizure of 412 grams of cocaine and a substantial amount of cash.

At trial in the Queen’s Bench of Alberta, our firm brought a Charter application to challenge the lawfulness of our client’s arrest and the lawfulness of the search.

We successfully established that the police violated our client’s Constitutional rights, however, the trial Judge did not exclude the seized evidence and our client was found guilty.

Our firm worked tirelessly and zealously to appeal the trial decision at the Alberta Court of Appeal.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal overturned the ruling of the trial Judge and acquitted our client of all charges.

R. v D.H., Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

R. v D.H., Alberta Court of Appeal

Our client was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after he was pulled over by police for a stop sign violation. During the course of the traffic stop, police became suspicious that our client was engaged in drug-related offences. In light of their suspicions, police detained our client and unleashed their sniffer-dog to conduct a free air sniff of our client’s vehicle. The results of the free air sniff indicated the presence of a prohibited substance. Our client was then formally arrested for the charges and a search of the vehicle revealed 193 grams of cocaine.

At trial, our firm brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of the sniffer-dog search. In addition, we argued that our client’s right to counsel was violated, as police continued to aggressively question prior to providing him with a reasonable opportunity to speak to a lawyer. The Trial Judge agreed with our argument, and the evidence seized from our client’s vehicle was excluded. Our client was eventually acquitted on the charges.

R. v D.N., Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

Our client was charged with several offences, including possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a loaded firearm. It was alleged that our client was a drug supplier who was going to be meeting with an individual for the purpose of drug transactions. The police set up surveillance on the location where the meet-up was supposed to occur and subsequently arrested our client when he was observed at the said location. Upon arrest, our client was subject to a search, where 16 dime baggies of methamphetamine and cocaine were found, along with a 9mm handgun and over $9000 of cash.

At trial, our office brought a Charter application to challenge the lawfulness of our client’s arrest and search. The Trial Judge agreed with our position in finding that our client’s Constitutional rights were violated by the actions of the police. The evidence was excluded, and our client was acquitted on all charges.

R. v A.G., Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

Our client was charged with possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime over $5000. Our client was subject to a large police investigation spanning over several months. During this investigation, our client’s activities were physically surveilled by police, as well as had his location electronically tracked by police. Based on this surveillance, police applied for and were issued a search warrant to search our client’s vehicle and residence. Upon searching the residence of our client, police seized 11 kilograms of cocaine. In addition, our client was subject to a search of his person and found to be in possession of 300 grams of cocaine.

When our firm was retained, we reviewed the disclosure carefully. With our expertise, we identified several Charter violations that were made by the police during their investigation.

After pointing out these severe violations out to the Crown, the charges against our client were withdrawn prior to trial.

Our client was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police received information from a source that our client was in possession of significant amounts of cocaine. Police conducted surveillance on our client, and eventually, a search warrant was obtained and executed at a hotel room associated with him. This search resulted in the seizure of 196.5 grams of crack cocaine.

At trial, our firm brought a Charter application to challenge the validity of the search warrant. Particularly, our firm argued that there were several inaccurate statements that were put forth in the police’s application to obtain the search warrant. Ultimately, the Court found that there were insufficient grounds to obtain the search warrant, and therefore, the items seized from the hotel room were inadmissible at trial.

Our client was found not guilty of the charges.

R. v M.T., Supreme Court of Northwest Territories

Our client was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking, conspiracy to traffick a controlled substance and being a participant of organized crime. Our client was the target of a 2-year intensive police investigation involving surveillance and interception of phone communications.

Further, as a result of the investigation, police were able to obtain search warrants that allowed them to covertly enter a number of properties associated with our client for the purpose of searching for evidence relating to drug trafficking. During these covert entries, police located multi-kilos of cocaine and multi-kilos of methamphetamine, on multiple occasions. The entirety of the investigation by police resulted in the seizure of large, commercial quantities of cocaine and methamphetamine.

We were retained on the matter and reviewed the thousands of pages of disclosure with a fine-tooth comb. It becomes apparent that there were several issues with the lawfulness of our client’s arrest.

Upon outlining our position to the Crown and advocating for our client’s Charter rights, the charges were withdrawn prior to trial.

Our client was arrested and charged by police for drug trafficking, and possession for the purpose of trafficking, after he conducted a sale of MDMA to an undercover police officer at a rave. After his arrest, our client was searched and found to be in possession of other controlled substances.

The client retained our firm to represent him at trial. At trial, we raised the defence of Entrapment. Our argument focused on the police not having the requisite standard of reasonable suspicion prior to providing our client with the opportunity to engage in the sale of the controlled substance.

In essence, we were able to argue that our client was randomly targeted by the police in an effort to set him up for a criminal activity.

The defence of Entrapment was successful, which ultimately lead to a stay of proceedings for the abuse of process endured. Our client was able to maintain a record clear of a criminal conviction.

Our client was charged with four counts of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking, namely cannabis resin, hydromorphone, methamphetamine, and heroin. It was alleged that our client attended the Edmonton Institution for a scheduled 72-hour visit with her son when she was detained and searched by Edmonton Institution guards. Upon searching our client, she was found to be in possession of 5.8 grams of methamphetamine, 3.1 grams of heroin and 9.1 grams of cannabis resin.

At trial, we were able to successfully argue the defence of duress. We advocated our client’s side of the story whereby she was contacted by a gang member who informed her that her son would be harmed in the Edmonton Institution if she did not deliver the drugs.

The Court found our client’s side of the story credible and ultimately acquitted her of all charges.

R. v L.E.S., Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

Our client was pulled over by police and detained upon suspicion of impaired driving. The police officer requested our client to blow into a mandatory alcohol screening device.

After failing the breath sample test, our client was arrested and charged with impaired driving.

Subsequent to the arrest, our client provided two further breath samples to police, indicating a blood alcohol concentration level of 150mg%.

Our firm was retained, and upon reviewing the disclosure, we identified several Charter violations.

On the day of trial, the charges against our client were withdrawn in their entirety and our client was left without a criminal record.

Our client was convicted at trial in the Provincial Court of Alberta for driving while impaired and driving with a blood-alcohol level of over 80mg. We represented this client on appeal in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, where it was argued that our client’s Constitutional rights were violated by the police.

In addition, it was argued that the trial Judge did not properly assess the admissibility of evidence presented at trial, to the detriment of our client. The conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The matter was ultimately stayed before a new trial scheduled. Conviction overturned on appeal, new trial ordered, charges ultimately stayed.

R. v R.G.B., Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

Our client was detained by police on private property, pursuant to an impaired driving investigation. At the time, our client was prohibited from operating a motor vehicle.

Our client was subject to a roadside breath demand, which he failed. After failing the breath test, our client was arrested for impaired driving and driving while prohibited.

Our firm was retained, and upon reviewing the disclosure, we identified several Charter violations and immediately filed a Constitutional argument outlining the severe breaches of our client’s rights. The charges were ultimately stayed by the Crown and our client was left with no criminal conviction.