Mines And Company Law Office | Recent Successes

Drug Offences
Impaired and Other Driving Offences
Theft, Fraud and Other Property Offences
Assault and Threatening Offences
Sexual Offences
Serious Offences including Homicide

R. vs. A.M. - Richmond Provincial Court

December 30, 2011

Charges: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Cocaine & Marijuana).
Issue: Whether the police conducted a lawful arrest and search of the vehicle in this "dial-a-dope" case.
Result: On the second day of trial, Mr. Mines made successful application to have the drug evidence (worth approximately $15,000) excluded on the basis that the search was unlawful. All charges dismissed. No criminal record.

R. vs. D. Z. - Vancouver Youth Court

December 1, 2011

Charge: Possession of Marijuana.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown to allow his client into the Alternative Measures program. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

October 13, 2011

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (cocaine).
Issue: Whether the police had lawful grounds to arrest and search Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client in this "dial-a-dope" case.
Result: On the 4th day of trial , Mr. Mansoori-Dara made a successful application to the trial judge which resulted in exclusion of the drug evidence and dismissal of all charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.B. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

June 22, 2011

Charge: Possession of Marijuana.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara persuaded Crown Counsel to resolve this matter by way of Alternative Measures. Upon completion of the program, the court dismissed the charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. W.G. - Nanaimo Provincial Court

May 02, 2011

Charge: Production / PPT Marijuana - Return of Seized Money.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove that $2000 seized by police from Mr. Mines' client was proceeds of crime.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to return the funds to his client.

R. vs. W. G. - Nanaimo Provincial Court

February 09, 2011

Charge: Production; PPT Marijuana (over 3 kg).
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove that Mr. Mines' client was a party to producing marijuana with respect to approximately 200 plants.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed only on the lesser offence of PPT less than 3 kg. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his clients' behalf, the court granted Mr. Mines' client a 9 month Conditional Sentence Order and declined to impose the condition sought by the Crown - that Mr. Mines' client be prohibited from possessing hydroponic growing equipment.

R. vs. D.F. - Vancouver Provincial Court

October 21, 2010

Charge: Production of Marijuana; PPT Marijuana.
Issue: Whether the police search of this 250 plant grow operation was lawful, and whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client had knowledge and control over the operation.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. R. S. - Abbottsford Provincial Court

September 27, 2010

Charge: Production; PPT Marijuana.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client was guilty of producing marijuana and whether he was in possession in excess of 1000 plants.
Result: As a result of lengthy negotiations, Mr. Mines persuaded Crown that his client was only responsible for 63 "clones".
Guilty plea only to PPT Under 3 Kgs. Crown originally sought a 12 month jail sentence. The trial judge granted Mr Mines' client a 3 month Conditional Sentence. No jail.

R. vs. S.M. - Williams Lake Supreme Court

May 21, 2010

Charge: Production of Marijuana; Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Marijuana).
Issue: Whether police breached Mr. Mines' clients' Charter rights prior to obtaining a confession from him with respect to his involvement in a 5,000 plant grow-operation.
Result: On the 5th day of trial, after Mr. Mines had vigorously cross-examined police witnesses, Crown Counsel offered a satisfactory resolution by way of plea bargain. The Crown had originally sought a two year jail sentence, but significantly downgraded its position to a 12 month Conditional Sentence Order with
no house arrest, no electronic monitoring and no probation.

R. vs. R.G. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 29, 2010

Charge: Production of Marijuana; PPT Marijuana.
Issue: Whether the marijuana plants were produced for a commercial purpose or were for personal use.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the trial judge agreed that the marijuana was for personal use. Suspended Sentence. No jail.

R. vs. G.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 01, 2010

Charge: Possession for the purpose of Trafficking ( Ecstasy & Marijuana)
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, the drugs could have been possessed for personal use.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations, Crown Counsel downgraded the charge to simple possession. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the judge granted his client a Conditional Discharge rather than the jail sentence originally sought.

R. vs. J. L. - Richmond Provincial Court

March 25, 2010

Charge: Trafficking (Cocaine).
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of a "dial-a-dope" scheme, Mr. Mines' client would receive a jail sentence.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge granted Mr. Mines' client a 9 month Conditional Sentence. No jail.

R. vs. J.L. - Vancouver Provincial Court

February 04, 2010

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Marijuana).
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be sentenced to jail.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the judge granted Mr. Mines' client a Conditional Sentence. No jail.

R. vs. N.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

October 14, 2009

Charge: Production of Marijuana; Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking.
Issue: Whether Crown Counsel could prove that Mr. Mines' client had control over the grow operation.
Result: Mr. Mines made representations resulting in Crown staying all charges prior to trial. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

June 18, 2009

Charge: Unlawful Possession of Tobacco ( Excise Act.)
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client was a party to the unlawful possession of eleven cases of cigarettes.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to guide his client through a police investigation that resulted in Crown Counsel entering a Stay of Proceedings prior to the trial. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.M.A. - Vancouver Provincial Court

May 15, 2009

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (cocaine and heroin).
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be sentenced to jail in this "dial-a-dope" case.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge agreed that a Conditional Sentence was appropriate. Mr. Mines' client was allowed to serve the sentence in the community. No jail.

R. vs. A.C. - New Westminster Provincial Court

May 06, 2009

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (cocaine).
Issue: Whether jail was the appropriate sentence.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge agreed that jail was not necessary and placed his client on Probation.

R. vs. M. H. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 08, 2009

Charge: Trafficking.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.S.E. - Richmond Provincial Court

April 07, 2009

Charge: Trafficking (cocaine).
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client was a party to the offence.
Result: Not Guilty. The trial judge agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that his client was not aware of the drug transaction that occurred in the back of his car. Charge dismissed.

R. vs. J.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

February 24, 2009

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Cocaine, Ecstasy, Heroin, Marijuana) x 2.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines client would be sentenced to jail for these "dial a dope" offences.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel that one of the offences involved an illegal search which resulted in Crown entering a stay of proceedings. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on the remaining charge, the trial judge granted Mr. Mines' client a Conditional Sentence to be served in the community. No jail.

R. vs. C. H. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 29, 2008

Charge: Possession of Cocaine; Obstruct Police.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of the arrest, Mr. Mines' client's Charter rights were violated.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel that the arrest was unlawful. In the result the Crown withdrew both charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. N.M. - Richmond Provincial Court

September 16, 2008

Charge: Trafficking Cocaine.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to be sentenced to jail.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions in this "dial-a-dope" case, the trial judge granted Mr. Mines' client a Conditional Sentence to be served in the community. No jail.

R. vs. C.D. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

September 12, 2008

Charge: Production of a Controlled Substance (Marijuana).
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to be sentenced to jail.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge granted Mr. Mines' client a Conditional Sentence to be served in the community. No jail.

R. vs. V. Y. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 28, 2008

Charge: Trafficking; PPT (Ecstasy).
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for the Court to sentence Mr. Mines' client to jail.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel not to rely on a portion of the drug evidence that was improperly seized and, after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court imposed a community based sentence.

R. vs. S.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 23, 2008

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Ecstasy)
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client's Charter rights were breached upon being searched and whether Crown would be granted an adjournment when a police witness did not attend the trial.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines submissions, the trial judge declined to grant the adjournment and Crown Counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. D. D, - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 12, 2008

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Marijuana).
Issue: Whether the police had legal authority to arrest and search Mr. Mines' client.
Result: Not Guilty. Mr. Mines was able to persuade the trial judge that his client's Charter rights were violated. The evidence obtained from the illegal search was excluded.

R. vs. C. W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 13, 2007

Charge: Trafficking (Ecstasy).
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances of the offence and the circumstances of Mr. Mines' client, it was in the public interest to proceed.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into the Alternative Measures Program and after his client satisfied the conditions Crown withdrew the charge.

R. vs. B.L.T. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 12, 2007

Charge: Production of Marijuana; Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking.
Issue: Whether the search warrant was valid.
Result: Not Guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge agreed that the warrant had been issued on the basis of misleading information. The search warrant was set aside, the evidence of the grow operation was excluded, and Mr. Mines' client was therefore able to avoid conviction and forfeiture of his residence to the Crown.

R. vs. H.B.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

May 14, 2007

Charge: Possession of Cocaine; Possession of a Prohibited Weapon.
Issue: Whether the police search, incidental to an investigative detention, was lawful.
Result: Not Guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions the trial judge ruled that the search was unlawful. He excluded the drug and weapon evidence and dismissed both charges.

R. vs. K.L.H. - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 28, 2006

Charge: Production of a Controlled Substance; Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking.
Issue: Whether police had reasonable grounds to search the dwelling; Whether the substance (cocaine) was necessarily possessed for trafficking.
Result: After submissions by Mr. Mines, the Crown withdrew the charge and proceeded on the lesser charge of simple possession. Mr. Mines' client was sentenced to a fine (the Crown had originally sought 6 months jail) and a large amount of cash was returned to Mr. Mines' client.

R. vs. D.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 10, 2006

Charge: Possession of a Controlled Substance.
Issue: Whether police had reasonable grounds to search Mr. Mines' client.
Result: Not Guilty. The drug evidence was not admitted due to an illegal search by police.

R. v. C.R. - New Westminster Provincial Court

September 20, 2006

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client had knowledge of the drugs found in the car he was driving.
Result: Crown Counsel withdrew the charge prior to trial.

R. vs. M.B. - Vancouver Supreme Court

May 23, 2006

Charge: Possession of Marijuana for the Purpose of Trafficking.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines client had knowledge of the contents of a sports bag that he delivered to his co-accused's car for the purpose of delivering to a Vancouver Cafe that was openly selling marijuana.
Result: Not Guilty. (7 day jury trial)

R. vs. M.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 19, 2006

Charge: Possession of Cocaine.
Issue: Whether the automobile search of Mr. Mines' client was lawful.
Result: After Mr. Mines' consultations and negotiations with Crown Counsel, no charge was approved.

R. vs. L.F. and J.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

February 09, 2006

Charge: Possession of Marijuana.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances of the arrest, it was in the public interest to proceed with charges.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, Crown Counsel withdrew charges against both of Mr. Mines' clients.

R. vs. J.R. - Nanaimo Provincial Court

December 13, 2005

Charge: Possession of a Controlled Substance (1 lb. marijuana).
Issue: Would the judge accede to the Crown's submission to convict Mr. Mines' client?
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the judge granted Mr. Mines' client a discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. S.H.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 14, 2005

Charge: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking (Cocaine).
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, the police conducted a lawful search.
Result: Not Guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge ruled that the police search was unlawful and refused to admit the drugs into evidence.

R. vs. M.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

May 26, 2005

Charge: Trafficking Marijuana.
Issue: Whether the judge would accede to Crown's request for a jail sentence.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted Mr. Mines' client a 6 month Suspended Sentence with no community supervision required.

R. vs. C.K. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 14, 2004

Charge: Exporting/Possessing Methamphetamine for the Purpose Of Trafficking.
Issue: Whether Mr.Mines' client would be sentenced to jail for arranging to sell over $30,000 worth of "ecstasy" tablets to U.S. undercover agents.
Result: After extensive negotiations with Crown, and after making submissions to the Court, Mr. Mines was able to obtain a 9 month Conditional Sentence Order for his client.

R. vs. R.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 12, 2012

Charges: Driving While Prohibited; Failing to Attend Court.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a licence and to stay the FTA charge. No criminal record. No driving prohibition.

R. vs. S. B. - New Westminster Provincial Court

December 21, 2011

Charge: Impaired Driving; Over .08.
Issue: Whether there was any public interest in proceeding on the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay the criminal charges upon his client pleading guilty to a lesser offence under the Motor Vehicle Act. The court imposed a fine and a two month driving prohibition. No criminal record.

D. M. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

December 16, 2011

Charge: 90 day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police investigation breached Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client to be free from an unlawful search and seizure of his breath sample.
Result: Driving Prohibition stayed on an interim basis.

B.G.A. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

December 15, 2011

Charge: 90 day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police investigation breached Mr. Mines' client's right to be free from an unlawful search and seizure of his breath sample.
Held: Driving prohibition stayed on an interim basis.

R. vs. J.J. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 9, 2011

Charge: Impaired Driving; Over .08.
Issue: Whether, given Mr. Mines' client's condition following a motor vehicle accident, the police had reasonable and probable grounds to make the breath demand.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed with a lesser offence under the Motor Vehicle Act. The court imposed a fine and a driving prohibition. No criminal record.

A.J. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

November 23, 2011

Charge: 90 day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police officer complied with his obligation to provide an opportunity for Mr. Mines' client to provide a second breath sample.
Result: The Adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that the officer did not comply with the legislation. Driving prohibition revoked. All fines and fees cancelled.

R.D. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

November 1, 2011

Charge: Review of Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether it was reasonable for the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles to issue a 4 month driving prohibition.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' submissions, the Superintendent reduced the prohibition to 2 months.

R. vs. S.P. - Abbotsford Provincial Court

October 28, 2011

Charges: Impaired Driving; Over .08.
Issue: Whether police had breached Mr. Mansoori-Dara's clients' Charter rights during the investigation.
Result: The trial judge agreed with Mr. Mansoori-Dara's submissions. At the end of a two day trial, the court excluded the breath test certificates and found Mr. Mansoori Dara's client not guilty on both charges. No criminal or MVA record.

R. vs. L.R. - Vancouver Provincial Court

September 13, 2011

Charges: Impaired Driving; Over .08.
Issue: Whether police breached Mr. Mines' client's Charter rights to speak to counsel prior to obtaining breath samples.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to resolve the charges persuant to the Motor Vehicle Act. No criminal record.

R. vs. R. F. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August, 5, 2011

Charge: Driving while Suspended.
Issue: Whether, given the positive steps Mr. Mines' client had taken to rehabilitate himself, it was necessary to proceed with a criminal charge and to seek a driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown Counsel to proceed with a Motor Vehicle Act charge. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court imposed a $500 fine. No criminal record. No driving prohibition.

R. vs. P.G. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 3, 2011

Charge: Impaired Care or Control; Refusing a Breath Sample.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines's client clearly refused the breathalyzer, and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution, given that the car was parked and that Mr. Mines's client had taken positive steps to cease drinking altogether.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to Proceed on a lesser Motor Vehicle Act charge. After hearin Mr. Mines' submissions the Court imposed a $1000 fine. No driving prohibition. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.M. - Squamish RCMP Investigation

June 09, 2011

Charge: Hit and Run.
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove that Mr. Mines' client was the driver involved in a hit and run accident.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to guide his client through the process of reporting the incident to ICBC and through the subsequent police investigation. In the result, Mr. Mines' client received a Motor Vehicle Act violation ticket as the owner (not the driver). No driving prohibition. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.P. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 29, 2011

Charge: Refusing a Breath Sample.
Issue: Whether the police conducted a lawful arrest and investigation of Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara persuaded Crown to drop the charge prior to trial. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.N. - New Westminster Provincial Court

April 06, 2011

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client was, in fact, a prohibited driver.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to point to a flaw in the Prohibition document and the Crown agreed to proceed on the lesser (3 point) offence of Driving without a Licence. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court imposed a $500 fine. No driving prohibition.

E.M. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

March 07, 2011

Charge: 90 Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.
Issue: Whether it was fair and reasonable for the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles to rely on the "fail" reading from the second roadside breath sample.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade counsel for the Superintendent to relieve his client of the requirement and expense of participating in the Responsible Driver Program and the Ignition Interlock Program.

R. vs. V. W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 08, 2010

Charge: Impaired Driving (x2); Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm; Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether the Court would accept Crown Counsel's submission that, in the circumstances of Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client, an off duty RCMP officer committing two separate impaired driving offences, the appropriate sentence should be 15 months jail.
Result: After considering Mr. Mansoori - Dara's extensive submissions concerning his client's background and the law involving serious personal injury offences, the trial judge granted a 60 day sentence to be served on weekends.

R. vs. S. S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 30, 2010

Charge: Dangerous Driving; Hit & Run.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate for Crown Counsel to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to dispose of the matter under the Motor Vehicle Act. The Crown sought a two year driving prohibition and a fine. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge ordered a one year driving prohibition an a fine. No criminal record.

R. vs. H.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

October 12, 2010

Charge: Impaired Driving; Refusing a Breath Sample.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' clients' Charter rights had been violated during the police investigation.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations and assessing the strength of the case, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings.

R. vs. D. P. - Surrey Provincial Court

September 21, 2010

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether the police officer would be able to identify Mr. Mines' client.
Result: Just prior to the trial commencing, Mr. Mines pointed to a serious weakness in the Police Report concerning identification. He persuaded Crown Counsel to proceed on a less serious Motor Vehicle Act charge and his client received a $300 fine instead of the 12 month driving prohibition originally sought. No driving prohibition.

R. vs. P.K - Abbottsford Provincial Court

September 13, 2010

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether a jail sentence would be imposed.
Result: Because this was a second offence, Mr. Mines' client faced a presumptive minimum jail sentence of 14 days. Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to make a joint submission for an 18 month driving prohibition and a $750 fine, which was accepted by the court. No jail.

R. vs. J. L. - New Westminster Provincial Court

September 08, 2010

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to prohibit Mr. Mines' client from driving.
Result: Mr. Mines' client faced a minimum mandatory 12 month driving prohibition and 10 penalty points. Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to proceed on a lesser 3 point Motor Vehicle Act charge. After considering Mr, Mines' submissions, the court imposed a fine. No driving prohibition.

P. G. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

August 19, 2010

Charge: 24 Hour Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police officer had proved that Mr. Mines' client had care/control of his car while intoxicated.
Result: Prohibition revoked. Mr Mines presented evidence which the adjudicator accepted resulting in removing the "24 Hour" Prohibition from the client's driving record.

P. G. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

August 19, 2010

R. vs. R.F. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

June 30, 2010

Charge: Impaired Driving / Over .08.
Issue: Whether the breath readings could be explained by unabsorbed alcohol from a drink consumed minutes before the vehicle was stopped by police.
Result: During the course of the trial, after considering Mr. Mines' representations, his client's evidence and expert scientific evidence, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record. No driving prohibition.

R. vs. L.M. - Kamloops Provincial Court

March 30, 2010

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client had knowledge that he had been prohibited from driving.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a driver's license. Rather than the mandatory jail sentence originally sought, Mr. Mines' client received a $300 fine. No driving prohibition. No jail.

R. vs. A.D. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

March 23, 2010

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client had received notice of the driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a license. His client received a fine and a 3 month driving prohibition instead of the 12 months originally sought.

R. vs. F.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 18, 2010

Charge: Impaired Driving; Refusing Breath Sample.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client had a lawful excuse for refusing to provide a roadside screening breath sample.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel that his client had a valid medical excuse. The case was resolved under the Motor Vehicle Act. No criminal record. No driving prohibition.

D. C. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

March 08, 2010

Charge: 90 Day Driving Prohibition. ("ADP")
Issue: Whether the Report to Superintendent properly set out that Mr. Mines' client refused a breath sample demand.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' submissions, the Adjudicator revoked the driving prohibition, allowing his client to resume driving.

R. vs. F. M. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

December 18, 2009

Charge: Impaired Driving; Over .08.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client to resolve this matter pursuant to a lesser charge under the Motor Vehicle Act. The court imposed the minimum fine and a four month driving prohibition. No criminal record.

P.G. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

November 25, 2009

Charge: 90 Day Administrative Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police had proved that Mr. Mines' client had refused to provide a sample in accordance with a lawful breath demand.
Result: The Adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that there was no lawful breath demand. Driving prohibition revoked.

R. vs. T.D. - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 19, 2009

Charge: Impaired Driving; Refusing a Breath Sample.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings and proceed on the lesser charge under the Motor Vehicle Act. No criminal conviction.

P. G. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

October 05, 2009

Charge: 90 Day Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police officer had proved that Mr. Mines' client had refused to provide a sample in compliance with a lawful breath demand.
Result: Prohibition revoked. The Adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that there was no lawful breath demand. In the result, Mr. Mines' client was able to resume driving.

V.L. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

March 11, 2009

Charge: Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to prohibit Mr. Mines' client from driving.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the adjudicator to not prohibit his client from driving, but to instead place him on probation.

M.H. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

February 17, 2009

Charge: 90 Day Administrative Driving Prohibition
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be permitted to drive pending the Judicial Review of his 90 day prohibition from driving.
Result: Mr Mines was able to obtain a stay of the prohibition, allowing his client to resume driving on an interim basis.

R. vs. V.N. - Vancouver Provincial Court

February 02, 2009

Charge: Dangerous Driving; Hit & Run; Impaired Driving; Over .08; Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to be convicted of all charges.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown Counsel to proceed only on the single count of Driving Over .08. The court fined Mr. Mines client and prohibited him from driving. Crown entered stays of proceedings on the more serious criminal charges. No jail.

R. vs. N.K. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

January 23, 2009

Charge: Driving while Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to be subject to a further 12 month driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of Driving Without a License, contrary to s.24 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The court imposed a 3 month driving prohibition and a fine.

R. vs. J. H. - Vancouver Provincial Court

January 14, 2009

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client knew that he was prohibited from driving.
Result: Midway through the trial, after considering Mr. Mines' representations, Crown Counsel agreed to accept a guilty plea to the lesser offence of driving without a license pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Act. Mr. Mines' client received a fine instead of a jail sentence. The court imposed no further driving prohibition.

R. vs. J.A. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

December 04, 2008

Charge: Dangerous Driving.
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove that the driving, which resulted in an accident that caused almost $90,000 in property damage, amounted to a criminal offence.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on a lesser charge under the Motor Vehicle Act.
Three month driving prohibition; No loss of insurance coverage; No criminal record.

S.K. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

November 04, 2008

Charge: 90 Day Administrative Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the investigating police officer had submitted a Report to Superintendent in the proper form.
Result: The Adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that the report was not properly filed. The driving prohibition was cancelled, allowing Mr. Mines' client to continue driving.

J.R. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

November 03, 2008

Charge: 90 Day Administrative Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the investigating police officer had submitted a Report to Superintendent in the proper form.
Result: The adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that the police report to Superintendent was flawed. The prohibition was cancelled, allowing Mr. Mines' client to continue driving.

J.A. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

September 08, 2008

D.F. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

July 10, 2008

Charge: Review of 90 Day Administrative Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the adjudicator had sufficient material from the investigating police officer to uphold the driving prohibition imposed upon Mr. Mines' client.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the adjudicator refused to grant an adjournment of the hearing and Mr. Mines' client's driving prohibition was cancelled, allowing him to continue driving.

R. vs. K.D. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 07, 2008

Charge: Hit and Run Investigation.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be charged with a criminal offence when he left his car after an accident.
Result: After Mr. Mines' submissions to police, his client was issued a Motor Vehicle Act violation ticket and was not charged with a crime. No criminal record.

H. L. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

November 13, 2007

Charge: 60 Day Vehicle Impoundment Review.
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client's vehicle to remain impounded by police.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the adjudicator ruled that the vehicle should be returned at no cost to Mr. Mines' client.

R. vs. C.R. - Surrey Provincial Court

October 19, 2007

Charge: Impaired Driving; Driving Over .08.
Issue: Whether the Crown had a substantial liklihood of obtaining a criminal conviction.
Result: After making submissions to Crown Counsel, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to drop the criminal charges upon his client pleading guilty to a lesser offence under the Motor Vehicle Act.

R. vs. R.D.W. - Provincial Court of Alberta

September 13, 2007

Charge: Impaired Driving / Over .08.
Issue: Whether the police officer had legal grounds to demand a breath sample.
Result: Not Guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge ruled that the officer acted improperly. The breath test results were excluded, and Mr. Mines' client was aquitted on both charges.

R. vs. A.R. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

April 10, 2007

Charge: Impaired Driving/Over .08
Issue: Whether police had lawful grounds to demand a breath sample which resulted in readings over the legal limit.
Result: Not Guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge ruled the breath results inadmissible and dismissed both charges.

R. vs. Y.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 23, 2007

Charge: Impaired Driving/Refuse Breath Test.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client had a lawful excuse for refusing to provide a breath sample.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' submission that the police officer made an unlawful breath demand, Crown Counsel withdrew the charges prior to trial.

R. vs. M.P. - Vancouver Provincial Court

October 27, 2006

Charge: Impaired Driving; Driving Over.08.
Issue: Whether breath test readings and evidence of driving infractions would amount to a conviction.
Result: Not Guilty. The trial judge, after hearing Mr. Mines' client testify about his drinking pattern and after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, had a reasonable doubt and dismissed both charges.

B.R. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

October 13, 2006

Charge: 90 day Administrative Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police had provided the Superintendent's office with a reliable and accurate report setting out why Mr. Mines' client should be prohibited from driving.
Result: Driving Prohibition revoked upon review. The adjudicator found that the police report did not disclose essential information, allowing Mr. Mines' client to resume driving.

R. vs. R.E. - Penticton Provincial Court

July 12, 2006

Charge: Impaired Driving; Over .08.
Issue: Whether police breached Mr. Mines' client's Charter right to be properly advised of a telephone call to a lawyer.
Result: Criminal charges withdrawn. Mr. Mines persuaded the Crown to proceed on a less serious charge under the Motor Vehicle Act. His client received a fine with no driving prohibition.

R. vs. S.T. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

May 23, 2006

Charge: Impaired Driving/ Over .08.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove the accuracy of the breath tests.
Result: Criminal charges withdrawn. Mr. Mines persuaded the Crown to proceed on a less serious Motor Vehicle Act charge. His client was fined and received no driving prohibition.

R. vs. P.H. - Merritt Provincial Court

April 11, 2006

Charge: Impaired Driving/ Over .08.
Issue: Whether Crown was aware of its obligation to adduce evidence from a blood alcohol expert, given that the breath tests were taken outside the 2 hour limit.
Result: Charges withdrawn by Crown. Complete stay of proceedings prior to trial.

D.R. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles - Vancouver Supreme Court

September 25, 2005

Charge: Application to Set Aside a Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client ought to have been prohibited based on his driving record.
Result: Driving prohibition set aside after Mr. Mines was able to obtain new trials and subsequent Crown withdrawals of two traffic offence convictions.

R. vs. D.H. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

July 27, 2005

Charge: Impaired Driving/ Over .08.
Issue: Whether the Crown would be granted a second adjournment of the trial.
Result: After submissions to Crown by Mr. Mines, Crown Counsel withdrew the criminal charges and agreed to accept a guilty plea to Driving Without Due Care and Attention under the Motor Vehicle Act. Mr. Mines' client received a $200 fine but was not prohibited from driving.

R. vs. C.H.C. Vancouver Provincial Court

January 19, 2005

Charge: Impaired Driving; Over .08
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client had "care or control" of the car.
Result: Not Guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge had doubt that Mr. Mines' client was in care or control.

R. vs. K.O. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

September 14, 2004

Charge: Impaired Driving/Over .08.
Issue: Whether breath test readings and evidence of impaired driving would amount to conviction.
Result: Criminal charges withdrawn. Mr. Mines persuaded the Crown to proceed on a less serious Motor Vehicle Act offence. Mr. Mines' client received a fine but was not prohibited from driving.

R. vs. K.O. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

September 14, 2004

Charge: 90 Day Administrative Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police had provided the Superintendent's office with a reliable and accurate report setting out why Mr. Mines' client should be prohibited from driving.
Result: Driving Prohibition revoked upon review. The adjudicator ruled that essential information was missing, and allowed Mr. Mines' client to resume driving.

D.H. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

April 24, 2004

Charge: 90 Day Administrative Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether the police have provided the Superintendent's office with a reliable and accurate report setting out why Mr. Mines' client should be prohibited from driving.
Result: Driving Prohibition revoked upon review. The adjudicator ruled that the Report lacked essential information and allowed Mr. Mines' client to resume driving.

R. vs. Y.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

May 16, 2012

Charge: Theft Under $5000.00 (Shoplifting).
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client had the intention to steal the items.
Result: Mr. Mines successfuly conveyed his client's explanation to Crown Counsel. The items were taken from the store by accident. No criminal charge approved.

R. vs. L.D. - Richmond Provincial Court

March 28, 2012

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, it was in the public interset to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to intervene at the earliest stage of the prosecution, He persuaded Crown Counsel to approve no charge in this case. No record.

R. vs. J.Z. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 9, 2012

Charge: Breaking and Entering; Possession of Stolen Property.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances of this commercial property offence, it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to allow his client into the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.S.F. - Vancouver Provincial Court

February 15, 2012

Charge: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether the Court would impose the one year jail sentence the Crown sought in this $100,000 theft from employer case.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted his client a Conditional Sentence Order. No jail.

R. vs. V.K. - Richmond Provincial Court

January 25, 2012

Charges: Theft Under $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether it was contrary to the public interest for Mr. Mines' client to be granted a conditional discharge.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted a 9 month conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. B.T. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

January 5, 2012

Charges: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether jail was the appropriate sentence for this breach of trust case which involved a theft of almost $70,000.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to resolve this case on a single count of theft and to persue a joint submission for a community based sentence. The court granted an 18 month conditional sentence order. No jail.

R. vs. K.H. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

November 30, 2011

Charge: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances of this ongoing theft in excess of $10,000, it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to be sentenced to a conditional jail sentence or not.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his clients' behalf, the Court granted a conditional discharge. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.B. - RCMP Investigation

November 15, 2011

Charge: Fraud Over $5000; Proceeds of Crime.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence to tie Mr. Mines' client to the offence of a second party whom had been charged withe a large scale fraud.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer his client through the investigation with no charge being approved.

R.vs. A.A. - Vancouver Provincial Court

October 26, 2011

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interst to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines persuded Crown Counsel to allow his clint into the Alternative Measures Program without the charge ever being approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.L. - Richmond Provincial Court

October 21, 2011

Charges: Theft Under $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client's Charter rights had been breached due to the delay in the police investigation.
Result: Mr. Mines argued that there was an abuse of process and was able to persuade Crown to enter a Stay of Proceedings upon his client completing the Alternative Measures program. No criminal record.

R. vs. T.K. - Vancouver Provincial Court

September 30, 2011

Charges: Fraud; Attempted Fraud Over $5000; Using forged documents.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would receive a lengthy jail sentence for defrauding or attempting to defraud three financial insitutions of $100,000.
Result: Crown had originally sought a 12 month jail sentence. Mr. Mines was able to successfuly negotiate a plea bargain. After hearing the Crown's and Mr. Mines' joint submission, the court imposed a 30 day sentence.

R. vs. M.G.V. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 31, 2011

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (from Employer).
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove the full amount of the theft.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown that only $70 was provable. After hearing submissions, the Court granted Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client a Conditional Discharge. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 13, 2011

Charges: Mischief to Property; Breach of Undertaking.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client, it was in the public interest for him to have a criminal record.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara persuaded Crown Counsel to make a joint submission for a Conditional Discharge which was granted by the court. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.P. - Richmond Provincial Court

August 11 ,2011

Charges: Theft Under $5000 (from Employer).
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, a jail sentence was appropriate.
Result: After making representations to Crown Counsel and the Court, Mr. Mines client was ordered to pay restitution and was granted a Conditional Discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. B.C. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

June 28, 2011

Charge: Theft under $5000 (Shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into Alternative Measures without ever approving a charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. E.S. - ICBC Investigation

June 14, 2011

Charge: Fraud; Misrepresentation
Issue: Whether or not ICBC would be recommending criminal charges with respect to an alleged fraudulent motor vehicle claim.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a civil settlement without admitting his client's civil or criminal liability. No charge was recommended.

R. vs. O.T. - Vancouver Provincial Court

May 09, 2011

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (Shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to not approve any charge in this case. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 03, 2011

Charge: Fraud / Theft Over $5000.
Issue: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client who stole bank cards and cheques from a number of his neighbors and then fraudulently obtained in the range of $30,000.
Result: After considering a psychological report and hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the court suspended the sentence and placed Mr. Mines' client on probation. No jail.

R. vs. G.H. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 01, 2011

Charge: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client stole approximately $20,000 from her employer.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown that $20,000 was not provable and to proceed on the lesser charge of Theft Under $5000. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the court granted his client a Conditional Discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. R.C. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

February 24, 2011

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (Shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into the Alternative Measures and to stay the criminal charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.K. - Surrey Provincial Court

February 18, 2011

Charge: Possession of Stolen Property; Using Forged Documents.
Issue: Whether, because of Mr. Mines' client's prior related criminal record, it would be appropriate for the court to impose a jail sentence.
Result: Though the crown sought a jail sentence, after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted his client a Conditional Sentence. No jail.

R. vs. L.D. - Vancouver Provincial Court

February 08, 2011

Charge: Breaking and Entering.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into the Alternative Measures Program. Upon completing the program, Crown entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

January 21, 2011

Charge: Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to not approve a criminal charge in the circumstances. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.L. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

January 17, 2011

Charge: Theft Under $5000 ( from employer).
Issue: Whether a jail sentence or a criminal conviction was warranted in the circumstances.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the trial judge granted Mr. Mines' client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. M.M. — Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

December 16, 2010

Charge: Breaking and Entering; Possession of Stolen Property.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of a youthful first time offender, a criminal prosecution was in the public interest.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into the Alternative Measures Program and to enter a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.L. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 15, 2010

Charge: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, Mr. Mines' client would be sentenced to jail for stealing over $330,000 from her employer.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a successful resolution with Crown Counsel. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted his client a Conditional Sentence and made an order for restitution. No jail.

R. vs. M.L. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 15, 2010

R. vs S. Q. - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 17, 2010

Charge: Fraud Over $5,000.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstance, a jail sentence was warranted for Mr. Mines' client who defrauded a credit union of more than $50,000.
Result: Mr. Mines made representations that resulted in the Court accepting a joint submission for a 24 month Suspended Sentence and a "stand alone" restitution order. No jail.

R. vs. R.D. - Surrey Provincial Court

October 08, 2010

Charge: Fraud Over $5000 (from Employer).
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of a fraud in excess of $10,000 where no restitution had been made, a jail sentence was appropriate.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted his client a Conditional Sentence. No jail.

R. vs. V.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

September 23, 2010

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (Shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: The Crown stayed the charge after Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to allow his client into the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

R. vs. H.K. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

August 04, 2010

Charge: Theft Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge for this shoplifting offence.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a Stay of Proceedings upon his client completing the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

R. vs. E.T. - Richmond Provincial Court

July 20, 2010

Charge: Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown Counsel to allow his client into the Alternative Measures Program and to enter a Stay of Proceedings upon its completion.
No criminal record.

R. vs. G.D. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

July 02, 2010

Charge: Attempted Break & Enter.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, the Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client was a willing party to the offence.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. A. C. - Surrey Provincial Court

June 09, 2010

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (Shoplifting).
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into the Alternative Measures. Upon completion of the program, Crown entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. R. L. - Vancouver Provincial Court

May 27, 2010

Charge: Fraud / Theft Under $5000 ( from Employer).
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for the court to grant Mr. Mines' client a Discharge in this "breach of trust" situation.
Result: The Crown sought a conviction through a Conditional Sentence Order, but after hearing Mr.Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the court granted Mr. Mines' client a Conditional Discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. v. L.P. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 07, 2010

Charge: Fraudulent Concealment (x 5).
Issue: What was the appropriate disposition for Mr. Mines' client who had surrendered herself on a Canada-wide warrant for her role in an identity theft scheme.
Result: The Crown had originally sought a 2 year jail sentence. After considering Mr. Mines' representations, Crown and defence made a joint submission which the Court accepted. Two year suspended sentence. No jail.

R. vs. S. B. - Vancouver Provincial Court.

March 22, 2010

Charge: Robbery.
Issue: Whether the Crown had proved that Mr. Mines' client had committed a robbery.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge found Mr. Mines' client not guilty of robbery, entering a conviction on the lesser offence of theft. Rather than the 8 month sentence the Crown sought, Mr Mines' client received 14 days.

R. vs. M.S. - Vancouver Police Investigation

March 22, 2010

Charge: Theft; Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be charged with a criminal offence in this large scale breach of trust case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a restitution agreement and obtained a civil settlement for his client. No criminal charges.

R. vs. C.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 15, 2010

Charge: Fraud Over $5000.
Issue: What was the appropriate sentence in the circumstances of Mr. Mines's client who obtained over $65,000 worth of jewelry by writing fraudulent cheques.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate an agreement with Crown Counsel and, after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge granted his client a suspended sentence and ordered restitution in half the amount Crown originally sought. No jail.

R. vs. D.B. - Richmond Provincial Court

December 15, 2009

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (Shoplifting).
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was in the public interest for Crown Counsel to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to not approve criminal charges and to allow his client into the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

R. vs. D. O. Vancouver Police Investigation

September 09, 2009

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (from employer)
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, there was enough evidence and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer his client through the investigation. He made representations to the police which resulted in no criminal charge being laid.

R. vs. P.B. - Calgary Provincial Court

August 28, 2009

Charge: Theft Under $5,000.
Issue: Whether the Crown had proved that Mr. Mines' client intended to steal property that had gone missing from a moving company.
Result: Not Guilty. After Mr. Mines' thorough cross examination of the complainant, the trial judge acquitted Mr. Mines' client on the basis that he had no intent to convert the missing property to his own use. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.P.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 30, 2009

Charge: Utter a Forged Document; Attempted Fraud.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was in the public interest for Mr. Mines' client to receive a criminal conviction.
Result: The trial judge agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that his client had taken sufficient rehabilitative steps to warrant being granted a Conditional Discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. A.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 23, 2009

Charge: Theft from Employer.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would receive a conviction for staling money from her workplace.
Result: Conditional Discharge. The trial judge agreed with Mr. Mines' submission that, even though this was a breach of trust situation, a criminal conviction was not warranted.

R. vs. Y.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 15, 2009

Charge: Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into Alternative Measures without formally approving the charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.O. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 09, 2009

Charge: Theft Under $5000.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of Mr. Mines' client, it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into Alternative Measures. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.M. - New Westminster Provincial Court

February 02, 2009

Charge: Fraud Over $5000.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to receive a criminal record.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court to granted his client an Absolute Discharge. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.A. - Richmond Provincial Court

October 01, 2008

Charge: Theft Over $5,000.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client, who stole over $250,000 from his employer, would be sentenced to jail.
Result: Even though this was a serious breach of trust situation, Mr. Mines made submissions to the court which resulted in his client being granted a Conditional Sentence to be served in the community. No jail.

R. vs. D.C. - Richmond Provincial Court

August 26, 2008

Charge: Theft Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown Counsel to withdraw the charge after his client completed Alternative Measures. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.W. - Richmond Provincial Court

August 15, 2008

Charge: Theft Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into the Alternative Measures Program. No charge ever approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.S. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

May 15, 2008

Charge: Theft from Employer.
Issue: Whether it would be appropriate for Crown to not proceed with a criminal charge in this breach of trust situation.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to permit his client into the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

R. vs. N.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 08, 2008

Charge: Mischief to Property Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown Counsel to withdraw the criminal charge after his client completed Alternative Measures. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.R. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

March 13, 2008

Charge: Assault with a Weapon, Threatening, Possession of a Firearm.
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove the case considering the strength of the identification evidence.
Result: Crown Counsel entered a stay of proceedings prior to the trial date, resulting in no criminal record for Mr. Mines' client.

R. vs. A.G. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

January 11, 2008

Charge: Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with this matter.
Result: As the result of Mr Mines' early intervention and his client's completion of Alternative Measures, Crown Counsel was persuaded to not approve criminal charges.

R. vs. J. S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

October 03, 2007

Charge: Theft Under $5000.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove the charge.
Result: Crown withdrew the charge prior to trial.

R. vs. R.G. - Vancouver Provincial Court

September 06, 2007

Charge: Break and Entering / Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether Crown would be able to prove the identity of the persons who unlawfully entered the complainant's home.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, Crown Counsel withdrew the criminal charges upon Mr. Mines' client entering into a "peace bond" to have no contact with the complainant.

R. vs. R.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 30, 2007

Charge: Breach of Probation.
Issue: Whether the clamp found in the possession of Mr. Mines' client was a "tool", contrary to his probation conditions.
Result: Not Guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge found that the item was not a "tool" and dismissed the charge.

R. vs. W.B.L. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

December 01, 2006

Charge: Fraud Over $5,000; Uttering Forged Documents Over $5,000.
Issue: Whether the accused mortgage broker, in a breach of trust situation, would be sentenced to jail.
Result: Eighteen month Conditional Sentence Order. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court agreed that a jail sentence was not warranted.

R. vs. H.N. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 24, 2006

Charge: Theft Under $5,000.
Issue: Whether Crown would approve the charge of shoplifting.
Result: Mr. Mines arranged for his client to enter and complete Alternative Measures Program. No charge was ever approved.

R. vs. J.H.T. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 14, 2006

Charge: Possession of Stolen Property.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove that Mr. Mines' client knew that the property (mountain bike) was stolen.
Result: Charge Withdrawn. Mr. Mines was successful in persuading Crown of his client's explanation, making a trial unnecessary.

R. vs. S.Y. - Richmond Provincial Court

April 06, 2006

Charge: Theft from Employer.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would receive a conviction for stealing money from her workplace.
Result: Conditional Discharge. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the Judge agreed that, even though this was a breach of trust situation, neither jail, nor even a criminal conviction was warranted.

R. vs. K.M. - Richmond Provincial Court

December 02, 2005

Charge: Theft Under $5,000 (two charges).
Issue: Was it appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to receive criminal convictions for these offences?
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the judge granted Mr. Mines' client a Discharge on each shoplifting charge.
No criminal record.

R. vs. Y.F. - Vancouver Provincial Court

September 28, 2004

Charge: Theft/Fraud Under $5,000.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be suitable for Alternative Measures in the circumstances of committing a fraud in the range of $3,000.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions and after his client Completed the Alternative Measures Program, the Crown withdrew the criminal charges.

R. vs. S.N. - Vancouver Provincial Court

May 7, 2012

Charge: Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a criminal conviction.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara persuaded Crown counsel to stay proceedings upon his client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. P.L. - Vancouver Provincial Court

May 3, 2012

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara persuaded Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings upon his client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. S.W - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 26, 2012

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara presented Crown counsel with additional evidence which resulted in Crown deciding to enter a complete stay of proceedings prior to the trial. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.H. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

April 17, 2012

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm (domestic).
Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove bodily harm.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser charge of simple assault. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted his client a conditional discharge. No conviction.

R. vs. B.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 13, 2012

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay the criminal charge upon his client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. J.T. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 12, 2012

Charges: Extortion (x4); Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: After considering Mr. Mansoori-Dara's representations with repect to the credibility of the complainants, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.A. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 2, 2012

Charge: Criminal Harassment.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: The Crown had originally sought a jail sentence, however Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to stay the criminal charge upon his client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. V.T. - Richmond Provincial Court

March 27, 2012

Charges: Extortion.
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove the Extortion offence.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay the Extortion charge and to proceed on the lesser offence of criminal harassment. Crown originally sought a significant jail sentence, but agreed to make a joint submission for a conditional discharge. No jail. No conviction.

R. vs. S.N.K. - Vancouver Provincial Court

February 15, 2012

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was in the public interest for Mr. Mines' client to receive a conditional discharge.
Result: Though the Crown sought a jail sentence due to the degree of injury sustained by the complainant, the Court, after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, granted a conditional discharge.

R. vs. A.A. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

February 14, 2012

Charges: Criminal Harrassment; Threatening.
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove the criminal charges.
Result: Despite his client having a prior related record, Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay the criminal charges upon his client entering into a Peace Bond.

R. vs. E.B. - Richmond Provincial Court

January 31, 2012

Charge: Assault Police Officer.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was in the public interest for Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client to be granted a conditional discharge.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mansoori-Dara's submissions, the court granted his client a conditional discharge. No conviction.

R. vs. H.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

January 3, 2012

Charges: Assault x2; Unlawful Confinement.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove the confinement charge and whether it was in the public interest for Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client to be granted a discharge.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the confinement charge and one of the assault charges. After hearing Mr. Manoori-Dara's submissions, the Court granted his client a conditional discharge. No conviction.

R. vs. S.D. - Richmond Provincial Court

December 14, 2011

Charge: Assault Police Officer.
Issue: Whether the officer executed a lawful arrest and whether Mr. Mines' client was justified in using force against the officer.
Result: At the conclusion of a two day trial, Mr. Mines persuaded the judge that his client was justified in assaulting the police officer that had unlawfully arrested him. Not Guilty. No criminal record.

R. vs. L.B. - Surrey Provincial Court

December 7, 2011

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction, given new information provided to the Crown.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to resolve the matter by staying the criminal charge upon his client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.T. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 2, 2011

Charges: Assault; Utterining Threats (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interst to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay the criminal charges upon his client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs L.H. - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 10, 2011

Charge: Assault (Domestic).
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for Mr.Mines' client to be sentenced to jail.
Result: Emphasizing the steps his client had taken to rehabilitate himself, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to reconsider its position and, after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted his client a suspended sentence.

R. vs. L.Z. - New Westminster Provincial Court

October 31, 2011

Charge: Assault (Domestic).
Issue: Whether, given further information provided by the complainant, there was a reasonable likelihood of a convictiontion.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a Stay of Proceedings upon his client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.W. - North Vancouver Criminal Court

October 6, 2011

Charges: Assault with a Weapon (Domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to direct Crown Counsel to further information which resulted in Crown entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. L.T. - Vancouver Provincial Court

September 27, 2011

Charges: Assault Causing Bodily Harm; Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges given the apparent lack of intent Mr. Mines' client had to cause bodily harm.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown Counsel to stay charges upon his client completing Alternative Measures. No criminal record.

R. vs. W.L. - Vancouver Provicial Court

September 21, 2011

Charges: Assault Causing Bodily Harm; Assaulting a Police Officer.
Issue: Whether Crown would be able tp prove that Mr. Mines' client, and not the co-accused, that caused injury to the complainant. Further, whether Mr. Mines' client actually assaulted the arresting officer or not.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to proceed on the lesser charges of simple Assault and Causing a Disturbance. The Crown had originally sought a jail sentence. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted his client a Conditional Discharge. No conviction.

R. vs. T.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

September 15, 2011

Charges: Assault with a Weapon; Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose.
Issue: Whether, based on the circumstances of an intoxicated person brandishing a pocket knife to a nightclub doorman after being forcibly ejected from the club, it was appropriate to proceed on the charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of Causing a Disturbance and, after hearing his submissions, the court granted Mr. Mines' client a Conditional Discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. T.T. - Vancouver Provincial Court

September 6, 2011

Charge: Section 810 Recognizance (Peace Bond).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of the Crown proving that the complainant had reason to fear for her safety as a result of the alleged incident.
Result: Based on extra-judicial steps taken by his client, Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to persuade Crown to enter a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record. No Peace Bond.

R. vs. C.A. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 16, 2011

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, there was a substantial likelihood of conviction.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations and clarification from the complainant, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.P. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 29, 2011

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether Crown had disclosed relevant witness statements in a timely manner prior to the trial.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara persuaded Crown Counsel that his client's right to a fair trial was breached. Crown entered a Stay of Proceedings prior to the trial. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.P. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

July 21, 2011

Charge: Assault (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, it was necessary for the Crown to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to allow his client to enter into a Peace Bond with a "no contact" condition. No criminal record.

R. vs. L.M. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

July 13, 2011

Charges: Assault (x2); Unlawfully in a Dwelling.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges, given Mr. Mines' client's limited role in the alleged offences.
Result: The Crown Counsel had been seeking a 3-6 month jail sentence. However, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to call no evidence against his client. All charges dismissed. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.N. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

June 07, 2011

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of conviction.
Result: After considering the complainant's clarifications and Mr. Mines' representations on his client's behalf, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.R. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

May 19, 2011

Charge: Criminal Harassment; Uttering Threats; Breach of Bail.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client's behavior amounted to criminal harassment and whether the Crown could prove that the Breach was intentional.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara persuaded Crown to proceed only on the Threatening charge. After hearing his submissions, the Court granted Mr. Manoori-Dara's client a Conditional Discharge. All other charges dropped.

R. vs. J.L. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

April 27, 2011

Charge: Pointing a Firearm; Uttering threats.
Issue: Whether the court would have accepted Mr. Mines'client's explanation of the incident.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser related offence of Unlawful Storage of a Firearm. All other charges (which carried a one year minimum jail sentence) dropped. After hearing his submissions, the trial judge granted Mr. Mines client a Conditional Discharge.

R. vs. D.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 21, 2011

Charge: Assault (x3).
Issue: To what degree did bias against sexual orientation factor into the circumstances of this case?
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate an Agreed Statement of Facts where his client pleaded guilty to a single charge and, after hearing submissions on his client's behalf, the judge granted Mr. Mines' client a suspended sentence with 12 months probation.

R. vs. J.C. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

April 21, 2011

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm; Threatening; Possession of a Weapon.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, it was in the public interest for Mr. Mansoori-Dara's client to be convicted of any criminal offences.
Result: Mr. Mansoori- Dara persuaded Crown Counsel to drop the Assault Causing Bodily Harm charge and, after hearing submissions, the court granted his client a Conditional Discharge. No criminal record.

R. vs. A. C. - Vancouver Youth Court

March 10, 2011

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, a criminal conviction was appropriate.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the court granted Mr. Mines' client a conditional discharge.

R. vs. R.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

February 25, 2011

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm; Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether there was consent to the fight and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel into allowing his client into the Alternative Measures Program and to stay the criminal charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. H.E.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

January 20, 2011

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge in this domestic assault case.
Result: After Mr. Mines' client completed an anger management course and with the complainant's input, Mr. Mines persuaded Crown Counsel to enter a Stay of Proceedings prior to the trial. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.W. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

November 01, 2010

Charge: Assault; Mischief.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: After hearing that the complainant had no interest in the matter proceeding and hearing Mr. Mines' representations on behalf of his client, Crown Counsel enter a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. J. C. - Richmond Provincial Court

August 20, 2010

Charge: Assault (domestic) x2.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charges.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations and obtaining new information, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.S. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

August 18, 2010

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.S. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

August 18, 2010

R. vs. E. S. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

August 11, 2010

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: After considering the evidence and Mr. Mines' representations, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings at the first court appearance. No criminal record.

R. vs. R. L. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 04, 2010

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution in this case.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations, the Crown called no evidence and the charge was dismissed. No criminal record.

R. vs. S. R. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

July 19, 2010

Charge: Assault with a Weapon; Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, Mr. Mines' client would be sentenced to jail.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of common assault and to make a joint submission for a Conditional Discharge, which was accepted by the court. No criminal coviction. No jail.

R. vs. E.Z. - Vancouver Provincial Court=

July 15, 2010

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations on his client's behalf, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.B. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

July 14, 2010

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be sentenced to jail.
Result: Crown Counsel was seeking a jail sentence, but Mr. Mines was able to persuade the Crown to make a joint submission for a 4 month Conditional Sentence on a plea to the lesser offence of common assault. The plea was accepted by the court; no jail.

R. vs. A.R. - Vancouver Provincial Court

June 10, 2010

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations, Crown Counsel elected to call no evidence. Charge dismissed. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.S.B. - Surrey Provincial Court

May 12, 2010

Charge: Forcible Entry; Assault with a Weapon (x2).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charges in this domestic violence case.
Result: Given the steps Mr.Mines' client had taken to rehabilitate himself, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a Stay of Proceedings prior to the trial date. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 12, 2010

Charge: Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: The Crown had originally sought a jail sentence but Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to Stay the Proceedings upon his client entering into a "Peace Bond". No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

February 01, 2010

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' representations on his client's behalf, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.Y. - Victoria Provincial Court

January 15, 2010

Charge: Criminal Harrassment; Threatening x2.
Issue: Whether the Crown had a reasonable likelihood of obtaining a conviction.
Result: Mr.Mines' client pleaded not guilty, the Crown called no evidence, and the trial judge found Mr.Mines' client not guilty.The judge dismissed all 3 criminal charges and placed Mr. Mines' client on a common law Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. G.A. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

January 06, 2010

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of conviction.
Result: On the trial date Crown Counsel, after hearing Mr. Mines' representations, agreed to proceed by way of a s. 810 Recognizance ("Peace Bond").
No criminal record.

R. vs. M.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 11, 2009

Charge: Criminal Harassment
Issue: Whether, given the nature of the alleged harassment and the apparent consent of the complainant, there was a substantial likelihood of conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a Stay of Proceedings prior to setting the matter down for trial. No criminal record.

R. vs. A. P. - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 13, 2009

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was in the public interest for the matter to proceed.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings prior to the case being set for trial. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.O. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

November 10, 2009

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to enter a conviction against Mr. Mines' client.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the trial judge to grant his client a Conditional Discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. C.G. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

October 29, 2009

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to receive a criminal conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the judge that, even though his client had assaulted an on duty taxi driver, it would not be contrary to the public interest to grant him a Conditional Discharge. No conviction entered.

R. vs. J.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

September 21, 2009

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, there was a reasonable prospect of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to not proceed with the charge. Stay of Proceedings prior to the trial date. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.I. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

September 08, 2009

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, considering the strength of the Crown's case and the ability to locate an essential Crown witness, it was in the public interest to proceed with the case.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' submissions, Crown Counsel entered a stay of proceedings at the Trial Confirmation Hearing. No criminal record.

R. vs. D. N. - Williams Lake Provincial Court

August 31, 2009

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of a parent biting a child back after being bitten, it was appropriate for a criminal conviction to result.
Result: Conditional Discharge. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge agreed that it was not necessary for the court to enter a conviction against Mr. Mines' client.

R. vs. A.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 13, 2009

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was reasonable for the Crown to apply to adjourn the case in order to confirm the attendance of a crucial witness.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown Counsel that it was not in the public interest to proceed. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.K. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 23, 2009

Charge: Assault; Assault with Weapon.
Issue: Whether, given the nature of the relationship between the complainant and Mr. Mines' client, it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay the criminal charges and allow his client to enter into a "Peace Bond". No criminal record.

R. vs. R.D. - Richmond Provincial Court

May 21, 2009

Charge: Assault Police Officer.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow his client into Alternative Measures. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.P. - New Westminster Provincial Court

May 06, 2009

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether it was reasonable for the Crown to apply for an adjournment in order to secure the attendance of a crucial witness.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown to not apply for the Adjournment. Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.N. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 25, 2009

Charge: Assault; Uttering a Threat; Failure to Appear.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charges.
Result: Given the nature of the complaint and the circumstances of Mr Mines' client, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay the proceedings on all charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 25, 2009

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove its case, given the lack of cooperation by the original complainant.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. G. S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 04, 2009

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a Stay of Proceedings without having to set a trial date. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.A. - Richmond Provincial Court

February 19, 2009

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of an assault upon a transit operator, it was appropriate for the court to enter a conviction.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge granted his client a Conditional Discharge. No criminal record.

R. vs. J. M. - Richmond Provincial Court

December 11, 2008

Charge: Causing a Disturbance; Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether in the circumstances, Mr. Mines' client's behaviour amounted to a criminal act.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines submissions on behalf of his client, Crown Counsel decided not to approve criminal charges. No record.

R. vs. I.D. - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 20, 2008

Charge: Assault with a Weapon; Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove the offences and whether it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to be convicted.
Result: Midway through the trial, Mr. Mines persuaded Crown Counsel to proceed only on the lesser charge of common assault. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted Mr. Mines' client a Discharge.

R. vs. M. S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

October 31, 2008

Charge: Assault; Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was in the public interest to proceed with the charges.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions and interviewing the complainant, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.S. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

October 16, 2008

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to withdraw the criminal charge upon his client completing Alternative Measures. No criminal record.

R. vs. W.W. - Surrey Provincial Court

October 10, 2008

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court placed Mr. Mines' client on a "Peace Bond" and Crown Counsel withdrew the criminal charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. C. M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

October 10, 2008

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions and interviewing the complainant, Crown Counsel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

September 11, 2008

Charge: Assault x 2; Breach of Recognizance.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client was involved in a consensual fight or acting in self defence.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the judge granted his client a conditional Discharge on the Breach charge and dismissed both Assault charges.
No criminal record.

R. vs. J.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 13, 2008

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client was acting in self defence when he punched a bus driver who was ejecting him from the bus.
Result: Not guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge agreed that Mr. Mines client was probably acting to defend himself and dismissed the charge.

R. vs. H. K. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 11, 2008

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to allow his client to enter into a "Peace Bond" and to enter a stay of proceedings on the assault charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.D. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

July 18, 2008

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Upon his client completing a course of anger management counselling sessions, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.G. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 03, 2008

Charge: Assault with a Weapon.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to withdraw the criminal charge upon his client entering into a Peace Bond.

R. vs. R.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

June 04, 2008

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to withdraw the charge prior to trial.
No criminal record.

R. vs. R. R. - Vancouver Provincial Court

January 16, 2008

Charge: Assault / Breach of Recognizance x 2.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for Mr. Mines' client to be convicted.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to withdraw the Assault charge and one of the Breach charges. The trial judge accepted Mr. Mines' submission that his client should be granted an Absolute Discharge.

R. vs. D.R. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

December 18, 2007

Charge: Assault; Obstruct Police.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client, an off duty police officer, committed offences when he helped persue and arrest someone who had earlier assaulted him.
Result: After a 6 day trial Mr. Mines' client was found not guilty on the obstruct police charge and was granted a six month conditional discharge on the assault charge.

R. vs. M.Y. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 14, 2007

Charge: Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances of the allegations and the circumstances of Mr. Mines' client, it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines persuaded Crown Counsel to withdraw the charge before a trial date was set.

R. vs. P.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 04, 2007

Charge: Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, the Crown could prove that the words amounted to a criminal offence.
Result: Crown Counsel withdrew the charge prior to the trial.

R. vs. B.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 16, 2007

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, it was in the public interest for the Crown to proceed.
Result: After Mr. Mines' client took alcohol counselling, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to withdraw the charge.

R. vs. T. M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 28, 2007

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for the matter to proceed as a criminal charge.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions Crown Counsel withdrew the criminal charge upon Mr. Mines's client entering into a "Peace Bond".

R. vs. J. P. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

August 20, 2007

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove the case.
Result: Crown Counsel withdrew the charge.

R. vs. H. R.M. - Richmond Provincial Court

August 14, 2007

Charge: Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was in the public interest for the matter to proceed as a criminal charge.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, Crown Counsel withdrew the criminal charge upon Mr. Mines' client entering into a "Peace Bond".

R. vs. H.B.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

June 26, 2007

Charge: Failure to Comply with Probation Order (5 Counts).
Issue: Mr. Mines' client was alleged to have breached no contact orders with his former spouse on 4 occassions. Credibility of the witnesses was in issue.
Result: After considering the evidence and hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge found Mr. Mines' client not guilty on 4 of the 5 charges. He placed Mr. Mines' client on Probation. (the Crown had originally sought a jail sentence).

R. vs. G. M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

May 03, 2007

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether the Crown had a reasonable likelihood of conviction.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions and considering its position, Crown Counsel withdrew the charge prior to trial.

R. vs. J.M.M. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

January 02, 2007

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances of the complainant's statement to police, there was a likelihood of conviction.
Result: After submissions to Crown by Mr. Mines the Crown withdrew the charge.

R. vs. D.H. - Vancouver Supreme Court

December 11, 2006

Charge: Aggravated Assault.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client, a pub doorman, acted in self defence in causing significant injuries to a patron during an altercation at the pub.
Result: Not Guilty. Mr. Mines' client acquitted of all charges, including lesser included offences of assault causing bodily harm and common assault. (6 day jury trial).

R. vs. L.V.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

September 26, 2006

Charge: Criminal Harassment.
Issue: Whether, given the circumstances, it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, Crown Counsel withdrew the criminal charge upon Mr.Mines' client entering into a "Peace Bond."

R. vs. T.E. - Vancouver Provincial Court

September 26, 2006

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether in the circumstances of intervening in a fight between two children, Mr. Mines' client was guilty of assault.
Result: Charge withdrawn upon entering into a Peace Bond.

R. vs. W.A. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 25, 2006

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client was acting in self defence.
Result: Not Guilty. The trial judge, after hearing Mr. Mines' client's explanation and accepting Mr. Mines' submission on self defence, dismissed the charge.

R. vs. C.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court

May 10, 2006

Charge: Assault x2
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client, an off-duty security guard, was acting in defence of another person.
Result: Charges withdrawn by Crown Counsel after two days of trial. The evidence tended to establish Mr. Mines' argument that his client was protecting another person from assault.

R. vs. W.J. Richmond Provincial Court

April 25, 2006

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether the police had properly obtained witness statements alleging an assault.
Result: After Mr. Mines' consultations and negotiations with police and Crown Counsel, no charge was approved.

R. vs. L.R. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 23, 2006

Charge: Assault with a Weapon.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client was acting in self defence when she inflicted wounds to the arms of the complainant and damaged his jacket.
Result: Charges withdrawn by Crown on the trial date.

R. vs. J.L. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 08, 2005

Charge: Assault.
Issue: What sentence would be appropriate on a guilty plea?
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the judge granted Mr. Mines' client a discharge.

R. vs. B.G. - Surrey Provincial Court

August 19, 2005

Charge: Assault; Threatening; Unlawful Storage of Firearm.
Issue: Credibility of the complainant, lawfulness of the search of residence.
Result: After submissions to Crown by Mr. Mines, Crown withdrew all charges one week prior to trial.

R. vs. C.V. - Vancouver Provincial Court

June 14, 2005

Charge: Assault with a Weapon.
Issue: Whether Crown Counsel could prove the charge.
Result: Crown Counsel withdrew the charge on the trial date.

R. vs. W.D.H. - B.C. Court of Appeal

May 16, 2002

Charge: Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client had been properly convicted at trial.
Result: Conviction overturned on appeal. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court of Appeal ruled that the trial judge had misdirected himself with respect to the legal elements of uttering a threat.

R. vs. P.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 26, 2012

Charges: Sex Assault; Assault.
Issue: Whether Crown would be able to prove that there was no consent given, resulting in a conviction for sex assault.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to stay the sex assault charge and proceed only on the lesser charge of common assault. The Crown originally sought a significant jail sentence, but agreed to a joint submission of one day (less time served) and probation.

R. vs. G.L. - RCMP Investigation

January 24, 2012

Charges: Importing Child Pornography.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client had knowledge of the material found by customs officers on a computer hard drive that he brought into Canada.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer his client through the investigation with no charge being recommended by police.

R. vs. J.B. - Surrey RCMP Investigation

August 17, 2011

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether the complainant had consented to the sexual act.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer his client through the police investigation which concluded with no criminal charge being recommended to Crown Counsel.

R. vs. B.B. - Vancouver Police

June 10, 2011

Charge: Sex Assault; Sexual Interference
Issue: Whether the Crown would be able to prove the identity of the perpetrator of a sexual assault.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara was able to guide his client through the police investigation which, in the result, ended with Crown Counsel concluding the file with no charges being approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.J. - Vancouver Provincial Court

June 07, 2011

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether it was reasonable for Mr. Mines' client to have believed that the complainant had consented to the sexual act.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations on behalf of his client, the Crown agreed to proceed by way of a Peace Bond and to stay the criminal charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.B. - Abbotsford Provincial Court

February 01, 2011

Charge: Sexual Interference (x3).
Issue: Whether, given the historical nature of the offence and the circumstances of Mr. Mines' client, it was necessary for the Crown and court to consider a jail sentence.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the trial judge granted Mr. Mines' client a suspended sentence and placed him on probation for 15months. Crown Counsel stayed two of the charges.

R. vs. B. T. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 20, 2010

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to release Mr. Mines' client from custody.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the Provincial Court Judge to release his client on surety bail.

R. vs. D. N. - Williams Lake Provincial Court

June 16, 2010

Charge: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Given the circumstances, what was the appropriate sentence for Mr. Mines' client who had a sexual relationship with a minor.
Result: The Crown had sought a sentence of one year jail. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the trial judge agreed that a three month intermittent sentence was appropriate, allowing Mr. Mines' client to maintain his employment.

R. vs. M.T. - New Westminster Provincial Court

February 17, 2010

Charge: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be sentenced to jail in this breach of trust situation.
Result: Crown Counsel sought a jail sentence. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on the Sex Assault charge, the trial judge granted Mr Mines' client a six month Conditional Sentence, followed by probation. No jail.

R. vs. F.K.Y. - Vancouver Provincial Court

December 04, 2009

Charge: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction.
Result: Upon considering Mr. Mines' representations and considering the strength of its case, Crown Counsel decided to enter a Stay of Proceedings prior to the trial date. No criminal record.

R. vs. D. C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

November 26, 2009

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest and whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on the criminal charge upon his client entering into a s.810 Recognizance ("Peace Bond"). No criminal record.

R. vs. H. H. - Surrey Provincial Court

September 04, 2009

Charge: Importing Obscene Material into Canada; Possession of Child Pornography.
Issue: Whether, pending the investigation, it was appropriate for police to return Mr. Mines' client's seized passport to him.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade police to return his client's passport.

R. vs. T.A. - Vancouver Police Investigation

August 26, 2009

Charge: Internet Luring.
Issue: Whether the police investigator had sufficient evidence to recommend a criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide the investigator with information on his client's behalf which resulted in no criminal charge being approved.

R. vs. M.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 16, 2009

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether police would recommend that charges be approved.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer his client through a police investigation which ultimately resulted in no charges being laid. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.K. - Vancouver Provincial Court

January 07, 2009

Charge: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
Result: After considering Mr. Mines' representations and the lack of any corroborating forensic evidence, Crown Cousel entered a Stay of Proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.W. - Vancouver Provincial Court

July 16, 2009

R. vs. D.K. - Vancouver Provincial Court

January 07, 2009

R. vs. S.S. - Richmond Provincial Court

July 11, 2008

Charge: Possession of Child Pornography; Importing Obscene Material.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client had knowledge of the contents of DVDs that he purchased in China and brought into Canada.
Result: After making submissions to police, Canada Border Service investigators and Crown Counsel, Mr. Mines' client was not charged with any criminal or Customs Act offence. No record.

R. vs. J.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

April 02, 2008

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
Result: After interviewing witnesses and considering Mr. Mines' submissions on behalf of his client, Crown Counsel entered a stay of proceedings prior to the Preliminary Inquiry.

R. vs. A.C. - Surrey Provincial Court

September 20, 2007

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances, the Crown would be able to prove the charge.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, Crown withdrew the criminal charge upon Mr. Mines' client entering into a Peace Bond.

R. vs. M.I. - Vancouver Provincial Court

March 01, 2006

Charge: Communicating for Prostitution.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of Mr. Mines' client, it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, Crown Counsel withdrew the charge.

R. vs. S.A. - Vancouver Provincial Court

June 15, 2005

Charge: Communicating for Prostitution.
Issue: On a guilty plea, whether it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to receive a conviction.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the judge granted Mr. Mines' client a discharge.

R. vs. S.D. - Vancouver Police Investigation

June 07, 2005

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether police would recommend charges to Crown Counsel.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the police decide not to forward charges.

R. vs. L.W. - PortCoquitlam Provincial Court

September 26, 2011

Charges: Robbery; Unlawful Confinement; Extortion; Theft.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mansoori-Dara persuaded Crown to enter a complete Stay of Proceedings on all charges prior to the preliminary inquiry commencing. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 8, 2011

Charge: Robbery with a Weapon.
Issue: Whether, given Mr. Mines' client's mental health issues, it was appropriate to proceed with the robbery prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser related charge of common assault. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted a Conditional Discharge that focussed on rehabilitation. No jail.

R. vs. M.N. - Vancouver Provincial Court

January 05, 2011

Charge: Aggravated Assault.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client was suffering from a mental disorder at the time she stabbed her brother causing life threatening injuries.
Result: Mr. Mines and Crown Counsel presented expert psychiatric opinion evidence which was accepted by the court. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the trial judge found that his client was Not Criminally Responsible on account of mental disorder. No criminal record.

R. vs. J. W. L. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

July 12, 2010

Charge: Aggravated Assault; Assault with a Weapon (x2).
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for Mr. Mines' client to be released on bail.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the judge released Mr. Mines' client on surety bail.

R. vs. S.L. - Vancouver Supreme Court

March 19, 2010

Charge: Attempted Murder; Aggravated Sex Assault.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client was suffering from a mental disorder.
Result: After a five week Supreme Court trial, the judge accepted Mr. Mines' submissions and found his client Not Criminally Responsible on account of mental disorder.

R. vs. W.S. - Richmond Provincial Court

January 04, 2010

Charge: Kidnapping; Unlawful Confinement.
Issue: What the appropriate sentence would be in the circumstances. The Crown sought a 2.5 - 3 year Federal Penitentiary sentence.
Result: Mr. Mines negotiated a disposition agreement with Crown Counsl. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on his client's behalf, the trial judge imposed a 9 month Provincial sentence. No probation.

R. vs. M.T. - Vancouver Provincial Court

June 19, 2007

Charge: Create Terrorism Hoax; Public Mischief.
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of the offence, it would be appropriate for the Court to convict Mr. Mines' client.
Result: After lengthy submissions to Crown Counsel by Mr. Mines, Crown agreed to proceed on the lesser charge of Public Mischief. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted his client a Discharge.

R. vs. D.D. et al - Vancouver Supreme Court

February 25, 2006

Charge: Kidnapping; Assault with Weapon.
Issue: Whether Crown could prove the identity and the intentions of Mr. Mines' client.
Result: Not Guilty. Mr. Mines' client was acquitted of all charges (11 day jury trial).

R. vs. T.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 10, 2005

Charge: Robbery with a Weapon.
Issue: Whether the Crown had proved that Mr. Mines' client was, in fact, the robber.
Result: Not Guilty. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions on the "frailties of eyewitness identification," the trial judge dismissed the charge.

R. vs. L.I.G. - Vancouver Provincial Court

August 09, 2005

Charge: Robbery.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client was a "party" to the offence.
Result: Not Guilty of robbery or any included offence.

R. vs. P.W. - North Vancouver Provincial Court

December 09, 2004

Charge: Assault (after investigation for Murder).
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client would be sentenced to jail in circumstances where the co-accused was charged with manslaughter.
Result: After receiving Mr. Mines' advice during the investigation stage, the accused was charged with assault. Upon Mr. Mines' client pleading guilty, to an after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge suspended sentence and placed Mr. Mines' client on probation.

R. vs. S.M. - Surrey Provincial Court

October 04, 2004

Charge: Importing Over $10,000 Currency into Canada.
Issue: Whether Mr. Mines' client, a U.S. citizen, would be released from custody and whether he would face incarceration upon conviction for importing approximately $500,000 U.S. cash.
into Canada
Result: After obtaining his clients' release from custody, Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown Counsel to withdraw the criminal charge.

R. vs. R.A. North Vancouver Provincial Court

December 11, 2002

Charge: Manslaughter.
Issue: What sentence would be appropriate for Mr Mines' client who confessed to killing a Squamish lawyer five years earlier.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the trial judge sentenced Mr. Mines' client to five years jail.