Defending your rights and freedoms.
Dedicated. Experienced. Proven results.
Contact us now.
If you’ve been charged or investigated, don’t face the problem alone. Mines and Company will strongly advocate for a successful resolution prior to your trial, or where necessary, forcefully argue for your charges to be dismissed at trial. The vast majority of our client’s cases are resolved favourably.
Send an inquiry.
The use of the internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm is not secure and does not establish a lawyer-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.
Recent Successes
R. vs. K.C. – Delta Police Investigation
Charges: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges for this alleged assault that occured in the context of a recreational sporting activity.
Result: Mr. Mines provided information to the police investigator on our clients's behalf. Ultimately police decided to not recommend any criminal charges. No prosecution; no criminal record.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges for this alleged assault that occured in the context of a recreational sporting activity.
Result: Mr. Mines provided information to the police investigator on our clients's behalf. Ultimately police decided to not recommend any criminal charges. No prosecution; no criminal record.
R. vs. K.J. – Surrey Provincial Court
Charge: Uttering Threats.
Issue: Given the circumstances of the alleged offence and 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. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the proceedings and to resolve this matter with a 12 month Peace Bond. No criminal record.
Issue: Given the circumstances of the alleged offence and 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. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the proceedings and to resolve this matter with a 12 month Peace Bond. No criminal record.
R. vs. Z.A. – Burnaby RCMP Investigation
Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether the allegations of this domestic allegation would meet the Crown counsel's charge approval standard.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel that ultimately led to Crown declining to approve any criminal charge. Our client's Undertaking was withdrawn, permitting him to resume contact with his spouse. No criminal record.
Issue: Whether the allegations of this domestic allegation would meet the Crown counsel's charge approval standard.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel that ultimately led to Crown declining to approve any criminal charge. Our client's Undertaking was withdrawn, permitting him to resume contact with his spouse. No criminal record.
R. vs. K.L. – North Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: Assault.
Issue: Given the information we provided to Crown counsel on behalf of our client, whether it was appropriate to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able tp persuade Crown counsel that this matter did not meet the charge approval standard. Croen elected to not approve any charges. No prosecution. No criminal record.
Issue: Given the information we provided to Crown counsel on behalf of our client, whether it was appropriate to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able tp persuade Crown counsel that this matter did not meet the charge approval standard. Croen elected to not approve any charges. No prosecution. No criminal record.
R. vs. J.Z. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: Assault with a weapon.
Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence and the rehabilitative steps that we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge in this case involving our client not obeying a traffic flag person and assaulting her with her car.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown and the Court to grant our client a conditional discharge. Our client was placed on probation with a term to perform community service work.
Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence and the rehabilitative steps that we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge in this case involving our client not obeying a traffic flag person and assaulting her with her car.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown and the Court to grant our client a conditional discharge. Our client was placed on probation with a term to perform community service work.
R. vs. X.Z. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: s.810 Recognizance (Peace Bond) Application.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence for the crown to prove that the complainant's fear was reasonable.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown that helped persuade Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No Peace Bond was imposed on our client.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence for the crown to prove that the complainant's fear was reasonable.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown that helped persuade Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No Peace Bond was imposed on our client.
R. vs. Z.Y. – Healthcare Insurance Fraud Investigation
Charges: Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Given the prompt repayment of restitution that we made on our client's behalf, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the investigator to not forward any charges for prosecution. No criminal record.
Issue: Given the prompt repayment of restitution that we made on our client's behalf, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the investigator to not forward any charges for prosecution. No criminal record.
R. vs. A.M. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court
Charges: Pointing a firearm; assault with a firearm.
Issue: Given the context of the offence and our client's remorse and rehabilitation, whether a jail sentence was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to direct our client through a course of counselling and was able to persuade Crown counsel to make a joint recommendation for a community based sentence rather than the 2 year jail sentence that was Crown's original sentencing position. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted our client an 18 month conditional sentence, followed by 12 months probation. No jail.
Issue: Given the context of the offence and our client's remorse and rehabilitation, whether a jail sentence was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to direct our client through a course of counselling and was able to persuade Crown counsel to make a joint recommendation for a community based sentence rather than the 2 year jail sentence that was Crown's original sentencing position. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted our client an 18 month conditional sentence, followed by 12 months probation. No jail.
R. vs. T.B. and M.L. – Surrey RCMP Investigation
Charges: Possession of Stolen Property over $5000.
Issue: Whether police had sufficient grounds to recommend criminal charges against our clients.
Result: After Mr. Gauthier consulted with the investigator, RCMP decided to refer the case for civil forfeiture and to not pursue any criminal charges against our clients. No prosecution. No criminal record.
Issue: Whether police had sufficient grounds to recommend criminal charges against our clients.
Result: After Mr. Gauthier consulted with the investigator, RCMP decided to refer the case for civil forfeiture and to not pursue any criminal charges against our clients. No prosecution. No criminal record.
R. vs. I.M. – ICBC Insurance Fraud Investigation
Charges: Fraud/misrepresentation.
Issue: Whether our client actually intended to make a misleading or fraudulent automobile accident claim.
Result: After consulting with us, our client provided an explanation to the investigator that resulted in ICBC deciding to not recommend any charges. No prosecution. No criminal record.
Issue: Whether our client actually intended to make a misleading or fraudulent automobile accident claim.
Result: After consulting with us, our client provided an explanation to the investigator that resulted in ICBC deciding to not recommend any charges. No prosecution. No criminal record.
R. vs. D.C. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: Theft (from employeer) Over $5000.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.,br> Result: Upon Mr. Mines providing information to Crown counsel that our client had fully settled the matter civilly and that there was a significant chance that a key Crown witness would be unavailable at trial, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.,br> Result: Upon Mr. Mines providing information to Crown counsel that our client had fully settled the matter civilly and that there was a significant chance that a key Crown witness would be unavailable at trial, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
R. vs. M.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: Residential Breaking and Entering x3; Possession of a prohibited weapon; driving offences.
Issues: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed on all outstanding charges and whether 30 months jail was an appropriate sentence.
Result: Mr. Johnston was able to provide information to Crown counsel about our client's significant rehabilitation plan and persuaded Crown to drop 8 counts against our client. Mr. Johnston persuaded the court to impose a sentence of 12 months' jail rather than the 30 months the Crown was seeking.
Issues: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed on all outstanding charges and whether 30 months jail was an appropriate sentence.
Result: Mr. Johnston was able to provide information to Crown counsel about our client's significant rehabilitation plan and persuaded Crown to drop 8 counts against our client. Mr. Johnston persuaded the court to impose a sentence of 12 months' jail rather than the 30 months the Crown was seeking.
