RECENT CASES

TJ was charged with a historical sexual assault of the complainant (the person who makes the allegations that result in you being charged) which she said occurred over the period of 3 years. TJ denied that he had assaulted her and we set the matter down for trial. At trial, I crafted a meticulous cross-examination. During the cross-examination it became evident that what the complainant had claimed was not likely to have happened in the circumstances. Her evidence was not trustworthy. Mid-way through her cross-examination the Crown decided to issue a stay of proceedings against TJ during the trial. A stay of proceedings means the Crown stops the prosecution, in this case because they could not rely on what the complainant was saying as being credible. RESULT - CHARGES STAYED DURING TRIAL

After the Crown stayed the charges, the presiding Justice (the trial judge) commented that my cross-examination was an example of the way cross-examinations of sexual assault complainant's ought to be conducted, and that it was in keeping with the highest traditions of the bar - that is a reference to the "Bar" at Law, where lawyers are admitted into the practice of law. This comment was made by one of the most senior, respected and experienced Justice's in Calgary, if not all of Alberta.

PA was charged with a historical sexual assault of the complainant. PA denied the allegations. Part of the allegations necessitated a s.276 application which is sometimes needed in a Sexual Assault trial where questions relating to past sexual history concerning the complainant may be relevant to what happened in your case. 

This is a complex application and is becoming a more regular occurrence in Sexual Assault trials. We conducted that application and were allowed to ask certain questions as a result..

At trial, the complainant and the accused gave their evidence. At the end of the trial the presiding Justice acquitted the Accused of the charges finding him not guilty on his evidence. RESULT - ACCUSED FOUND NOT GUILTY AFTER TRIAL

LO was charged with Trafficking in Narcotics under the CDSA for the benefit of an Organized Crime Organization. The result of being convicted of an Organized Crime offence is that an offender will spend half of their sentence in prison before they are eligible for parole. A "regular" sentence of two years means that a convicted offender will serve 1/3 of their sentence in a Federal Penitentiary before they are eligible for parole. That does not mean parole will be granted, but they are eligible to apply. 

The matter was set for a 5 week trial. The Crown had strong evidence that could have resulted in an 18 year or more sentence after trial. The Crown, a member of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) Organized Crime Unit, agreed to allow a guilty plea on the same facts without the "for the benefit of an organized group" charge. It took months of negotiations to achieve that concession. 

That resulted in the accused being able to apply for parole after 1/3 of his sentence as opposed to 1/2 of his sentence. LO pled guilty in the face of overwhelming evidence against him. He received a 10 year sentence - the assigned Justice at sentencing commented that he would have had no issue sentencing LO to 18 years or more had we have run a trial and LO be found guilty. 

Organized Crime charges are extremely complex. They require a trained eye and experience to navigate. They involve the review of thousands of pages of disclosure, media, surveillance, warrants, informations to obtain (ITO's - an affidavit sworn by the police or the crown in wiretap cases to get a warrant), wiretap ITO's, confidential informant evidence, and a meticulous review of the police investigation. It requires hundreds of hours of work. It requires experience. I worked as an Organized Crime Prosecutor for over 8 years. If there is a defence in your charges, I will find it. 

In the end, the guilty plea saved LO potentially 10 years less of time in jail before he could have applied for parole and 10 years more of jail had he run a trial. That was hard for him to accept, but taking the time to explain the benefits of the deal, the strength of the Crown's evidence against him, and the potential danger of a lengthier sentence after trial saved LO over 10 more years in jail. - RESULT - GUILTY PLEA WITH SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED SENTENCE AND EARLIER PAROLE ELIGIBILITY

J.S. had three separate sets of charges involving the same complainant. Initially charged with Assault, the complainant made two additional allegations of Assault and Choking to Overcome. If convicted J.S. could have faced up to 8 years in jail or more. We began J.S.'s trial on the second set of charges, Choking to Overcome, Assault and breaches of his bail order. 

During the trial an evidentiary issue arose that the complainant had a camera in the living room trained on the area where she alleged that the assault happened. We adjourned (put off) the trial in order to obtain any camera footage that may have been captured. The complainant claimed not to have access to the recording system but then sent some video footage to the R.C.M.P. officer who was tasked with getting the camera footage by the Justice. 

As a result of this development, and the complainant's answers to my questions under cross-examination - it became evident that the complainant was not telling the whole truth. I was able to negotiate with the Crown to have J.S. enter guilty pleas to the breaches where he received a Conditional Discharge & Peace Bond for the remainder and most serious charges were withdrawn by the Crown, saving J.S. up to 8 years in jail. RESULT - LEAST SERIOUS CHARGES RESOLVED - MOST SERIOUS CHARGES WITHDRAWN BY THE CROWN

M.A. was charged with Robbery x 2 (in two separate files) and breaches of his bail conditions. He was arrested twice and I negotiated bail for him both times with the Crown. In respect of his first Robbery charge we conducted a Preliminary Inquiry -  A Preliminary Inquiry is a pre-trial hearing held in the provincial court (Alberta Court of Justice) to determine whether there is enough evidence to proceed with a trial in the Court of King's Bench for indictable offences. It serves as a screening mechanism to ensure that weak or baseless cases do not proceed to trial. 

At the Preliminary Inquiry the Crown's main witness gave evidence that was consistent with what M.A. would have said in his defence. This evidence made it clear that M.A. was not involved in the Robbery. The Crown withdrew the charges against M.A. 

For his second set of Robbery charges I negotiated with the Crown who eventually stayed the charges. M.A. pled guilty to the breaches of his bail and received time served in custody as a result. 

RESULT - ROBBERY 1 - CHARGES WITHDRAWN - ROBBERY 2 - CHARGES STAYED

L.A. was charged with Robbery. The Police alleged that L.A. had assaulted the complainant and taken his property. The Accused and his mother were at the Calgary Public Library downtown. The complainant stole the Accused's mother's cellular phone. His mother gave the Accused a description of the complainant who tracked down the complainant and confronted him over the theft from his mother. The complainant pulled a knife on the Accused who defended himself but took the bag held by him which he believed contained his mother's phone. The Crown agreed that a Peace Bond was an appropriate resolution. RESULT - ACCUSED ENTERED INTO A PEACE BOND - ROBBERY CHARGES WITHDRAWN BY THE CROWN

I have a proven track record of success, securing favorable outcomes for my clients in even the most complex cases. Let me put my experience to work for you.