R. vs. G.G. – Burnaby RCMP Investigation

,

Charges: Sexual Interference; Sex Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: We were able to successfully steer our client through the police investigation. Ultimately Crown Counsel declined to approve any charge.

/by

R. vs. S.K. et al – Surrey Provincial Court

,
Charge: Assault x3.
Issue: Given various conflicting accounts of the incident, whether there was a substantial likelihood of criminal convictions.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay all charges upon our clients entering into Peace Bonds. No criminal records.
/by

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

,
Charge: Assault (Domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Based on the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, we were able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings prior to the trial. No criminal record.
/by

O.B. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

,

Charge: Review of Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether it was reasonable for the Superintendent to issue our client a four month driving prohibition.
Result: We were able to persuade the Superintendent to reduce the prohibition from four months to one month.

/by

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

,

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to the mandatory 12 month minimum driving prohibition.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a valid licence. Three month prohibition imposed.

/by

R. vs. A.S. – Coquitlam RCMP Investigation

,

Charge: Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: We were able to successfully steer our client through the investigation. No charges recommended.

/by

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

,

Charge: Arson
Issue: Whether our client had the necessary mental capacity to be convicted of a criminal offence.
Result: After hearing Mr. Johnson’s submissions, the trial judge found that our client was Not Criminally Responsible on account of a Mental Disorder. No criminal record.

/by

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

,

Charge: Breaking and Entering; Participating in a Riot.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge.
Result: Notwithstanding our client’s participation in the infamous Stanley Cup Riot, after hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court granted a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

/by

R. vs. C.E. – Vancouver Provincial Court

,

Charge: Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate in this $36,000 emloyee fraud case.
Result: Notwithstanding the breach of trust, the Court granted the “unusual result” of a suspended sentence with 12 months probation and a restitution order. No jail or house arrest.

/by

R. vs. G.S. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

,

Charge: Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings prior to the trial. No criminal record.

/by

R. vs. C.C. – Vancouver Provincial Court

,

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program prior to any charge being approved. No criminal record.

/by

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

,
Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interst to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a complete stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
/by