Charges: Criminal Harassment.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide the police investigator with information about our client and the circumstances of the incidents that led to the discontinuation of the investigation. File closed. No criminal charges recommended.
Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was contrary to public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown to not proceed on a breach of bail allegation; to agree to not seek forfeiture of our client’s firearms, and to make a joint submission for a conditional discharge with probation. No criminal conviction.
Charge: Fear of safety allegation (Peace Bond Application).
Issue: Given the information we were able to provide to Crown counsel, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the Peace Bond application against our client.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings so that our client was no longer subject to any of the restrictive conditions he was bound by.
Charges: Assault (domestic). Reduced to Peace Bond.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we guided our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charges upon our client entering into a Peace Bond with a 12 month “no contact” order. No criminal record.
Charges: Assault (domestic). Reduced to Peace Bond.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we guided our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charges upon our client entering into a Peace Bond with a 12 month “no contact” order. No criminal record.
Charges: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there remained a public interest in continuing with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information about our client to Crown counsel which ultimately led to Crown entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
Charges: Sexual harassment.
Issue: Whether our client’s behaviour amounted to “sexual harassment” as defined by the university’s conduct policy.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to prepare our client for the University’s hearing and, upon hearing all of the evidence, the University ruled that our client had not engaged in sexual harassment or any behaviour that contravened the institution’s policies.
Charges: Assault x2 (Reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given the potential for self-defence in this case, whether it was appropriate for the criminal prosecution to continue.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel which resulted in Crown’s decision to proceed with a Peace Bond rather than the criminal charges. No criminal record.
Charges: Assault with a weapon ( reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client to resolve this matter with a s. 810 Recognizance (Peace Bond) for a period of 12 months. Stay of proceedings on the criminal charge. No criminal record.
Charges: Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosucution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown and to ultimately persuade Crown counsel to not approve any charge in this case. No charge approved. No criminal record.
Charges: Breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing an indictable offence, wearing a mask for the purpose of committing an indictable offence, breach of release order
Issue: Whether it would be consistent with the principles of sentencing for our client to serve his sentence in the community.
Result: Mr. Johnston provided Crown counsel with information which, along with our client’s rehabilitative progress and good compliance with strict bail conditions, persuaded the Crown to seek a jail sentence of under two years for his role in a violent “home invasion”. After hearing Mr. Johnston’s submissions, the court agreed it would not be inconsistent with the principles of sentencing for our client to serve his sentence in the community instead of in custody. This was a significant result for our client as home invasion convictions typically result in lengthy jail sentences served in federal prison. No further time in custody.
Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnston provided Crown counsel with information which, along with our client’s progress with counselling, persuaded the Crown to gradually relax our client’s bail conditions and ultimately direct a stay of proceedings on the charge. No further prosecution. No criminal record.
Mr. Mines, you provided great relief during a strenuous time. I am forever grateful.
Our client had taken responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty in Richmond Provincial Court where he was granted a conditional discharge. Upon being threatened and taunted by his roommate, our client kicked in the door to the roommate’s doo=r and held a meat cleaver to his throat. The Crown appealed sentence. At the sentence […]
