Recent Cases

To read recent cases in which our criminal lawyers obtained favourable results for clients, click on the relevant practice area below:
Drug Charges
Assault and Domestic Violence
Sexual Offences
Driving Offences
Theft, Fraud Charges, and Property Offences
Weapons Offences
Border Offences

Drug Charges

T. v. RCMP [2021]
Client arrested for possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking and released at the scene without charges. Police seized his vehicle and refused to return it until counsel filed an application with the court for its return, after which they returned the client’s vehicle.

R. v. J.T. [2020]
Client charged with possession of drugs and firearms seized from two residences, where he was found at the scene. Counsel argued that the search warrant for one of the residences was insufficient, The judge agreed that the warrant was insufficient and that the search of the residence violated the client’s Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Counsel later argued there had been an unreasonable delay in the client’s trial, and the judge agreed, resulting in a stay of proceedings on all the charges.

R. v. B.H. [2020]
Client was charged with possession cocaine and heroin and fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking. Police executed a search warrant at the client’s house and found large quantities of drugs. The matter proceeded to trial, where Mr. Beckett challenged the search warrant and argued for an acquittal. The challenge to the search warrant was successful, and the client was found NOT GUILTY.

R. v. R.L. [2020]
Client charged in international drug trafficking case involving kilos of Methamphetamines and Cocaine.Police arrest a number of people in Utah, Alberta and B.C. The entire case was dismissed as the Accused’s Right to be tried within a Reasonable Time was violated.

R. v. E.H. [2019]
Client was charged with trafficking an ounce of fentanyl to an undercover police officer. The transaction was captured on video. The matter proceeded to trial, where Mr. Beckett challenged the reliability of the officer’s identification evidence and argued for an acquittal. The client was found NOT GUILTY.

R. v. N.A. [2019]
Client was charged with possession of cocaine and heroin and fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking. Police arrested the client, searched him, and found a large bag of assorted drugs on him. The matter proceeded to trial, where Mr. Beckett challenged the police’s search of his client and argued that the drugs police found during the search should be excluded from evidence because police had violated his client’s Charter rights. Mr. Beckett’s challenge was successful, and the DRUGS WERE EXCLUDED FROM EVIDENCE in the trial.

R. v. Z [2017]
Client charged with possession of 8.5 kilograms of Heroin for the Purpose of Trafficking. Facts were that the accused picked up a parcel containing a picture frame that had been mailed from Asia which had Heroin secreted inside the frame. Canada Customs intercepted the frame and continued with a controlled delivery containing a small amount of Heroin and a placebo. The Accused was found NOT GUILTY after trial as the Judge found that the Defence raised a Reasonable Doubt as to the accused’s knowledge that the frame contained Heroin.

R. v. R. [2017]
Client was charged with trafficking in Cocaine after a police investigation involving an police officer working in an Undercover capacity as a drug purchaser. The police investigation was into a Dial-a-Dope operation and the case went to trial where the Judge agreed with defence counsel that the police has not proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt the accused has been the person selling the drugs. The Judge found that the evidence of Identification was lacking and the charges were dismissed – NOT GUILTY.

R.v.P [2017]
Our client was charged with numerous counts of Possession of Cocaine of the Purpose of Trafficking (PPT) as well as various other drugs. The defence brought an application to throw the charges out of court as a result of our client’s right to a trial within a reasonable time being breached. The application was successful and the case was dropped.

R.v.N [2015]
Client charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking. The Police had stopped N at roadblock and detected an odour of marijuana. Police proceeded to search N and his vehicle. 28 pieces of crack cocaine were found, along with three cell phones and over $500 cash. The Judge agreed that search was unlawful – all charges dismissed.

R.v.N [2015]
Client charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking. Police had stopped N at roadblock and detected an odour of marijuana. Police proceeded to search N and his vehicle. 28 pieces of crack cocaine were found, along with three cell phones and over $500 cash. Judge agrees that search was unlawful – all charges dismissed.

R. v. T.N. [2014]
Client charged with Production of Marijuana and Possession of Marijuana for the Purposes of Trafficking in relation to a marijuana grow-operation. Client found not guilty of all charges by trial judge following judge’s decision exclude the marijuana from evidence due to the search warrant for the residence having been found invalid.

R.v. M. [2014]
M was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine and heroine. The matter proceeded to trial. At trial we challenged the legality of the search of M’s purse, the location of the large quantity of drugs, based on the lack of grounds the police officer had to arrest M. The Judge ruled that the arrest of M was unlawful and therefore the search of M’s purse incidental to the arrest was also unlawful. The Judge excluded the drugs from evidence and M was therefor found not guilty.

R. v. R. [2014]
R. facing two drug trafficking charges in a dial-a-dope operation. Five days before a three day trial is set to commence, defence counsel meets with Crown with the result that all charges are dropped.

R. v. G. [2014]
G. found by police working in marijuana grow-operation. Crown describes the grow operation as one of the “most sophisticated” in British Columbia with set-up costs estimated by police at over $1 million. Police find over 3,900 plants and 55 pounds of drying marijuana on site. Crown initially seeking penitentiary jail sentence. Result: G. sentenced to 18 months conditional sentence allowing him to serve his entire sentence at home. No jail time.

R. v. P. [2014]
P charged with production of marijuana after being found in a large commercial grow-op.
After 3 days of trial all charges dismissed against P.

R. v. J. [2014]
Accused pulled over by police who smell marijuana and as a result search the vehicle and find a quantity of marijauana. Court agrees with Defence argument that there were no grounds to arrest J and search the vehicle. Result: Evidence excluded, J found not guilty.

R. v. R. [2014]
H sells heroin to an undercover officer in a Dial-A-Dope operation. Crown seeking 6 months in jail. Court agrees with defence that a 90 day intermittent (weekend) sentence was appropriate.

R. v. B. [2014]
B charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after stopped by police
with a large amount of cocaine found on his person. After trial B found not guilty of charge as Judge agrees with defence argument that identification of the offender not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Result: charges dismissed.

R. v. J.W. [2013]
Client retained us after she was convicted of multiple counts of drug trafficking at a trial. Crown prosecutor was seeking over 1 year in jail on sentencing. We managed the sentencing process and made extensive legal submissions resulting in client receiving a conditional sentence.

R. v. H. [2013]
H stopped by police who find 3 kilos of cocaine in his vehicle.
Judge agrees that search was unlawful, evidence is excluded. Result: charges dismissed.

Top

Assault and Domestic Violence

R. v. M.A. [2021]
Client charged with second degree murder released on BAIL after contested bail hearing where Crown sought his detention in jail until trial – BAIL GRANTED on MURDER CHARGE!

R. v. C. [2021]
Client charged with a number of Domestic Violence Offences.After negotiations with the Crown all Criminal charges dropped and the Client enters into a Peace Bond.

R. v. S.M. [2020]
Client charged with two counts of aggravated assault after allegedly stabbing two males outside a nightclub, just after closing time. Surveillance video showed client arguing with other patrons of the club and pulling a knife out of his back pocket, which was followed by physical fight. The evidence at trial established that in the course of the fight, two patrons suffered significant stab wounds while the client was holding the knife. Accused was found NOT GUILTY after trial, as the Judge found the Defence raised a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused intended to stab the patrons with the knife.

R. v. K.B. [2020]
Client was charged with the assault causing bodily harm of his wife. As a result of the allegations, the client could not live at home or have contact with his wife and children. Mr. Beckett’s negotiations with the Crown resulted in the client being able to return home and have contact with his wife and children, and the matter being resolved by way of a PEACE BOND – NO CRIMINAL RECORD.

R. v. K. [2020]
Client charged with a number of offences alleging an Unlawful Confinement with a Firearm. The Firearm alleged to be used found in Client’s home. All charges dismissed as the Client’s Right to be tried within a Reasonable time was violated.

R. v. S.L. [2020]
Client charged with assault and breaching his bail conditions. Following extensive discussions, ALL CHARGES DROPPED by Crown on the basis that Crown agreed with Defence Counsel’s arguments that there was no substantial likelihood of conviction on the assault charge, and it was not in the public interest to proceed on the breach charge.

R. v. F. [2020]
Client charged with assault causing bodily harm against an ex-girlfriend. Client maintained he had been acting in self-defence. After a trial, the judge agreed the Crown had not disproven self-defence, and found the client not guilty.

R. v. C.L. [2020]
Client charged with assault. CHARGE DROPPED by Crown in response to arguments by defence counsel that there was no substantial likelihood of conviction.

R. v. A.S. [2019]
Client was charged with assaulting his wife. The matter proceeded to trial, where Mr. Beckett challenged the complainant’s evidence and led evidence which he argued showed the complainant had fabricated the allegations to gain an advantage in her ongoing divorce and child custody disputes with the client. The client was found NOT GUILTY.

R. v. S.S. [2019]
Client was charged with assaulting his wife and the offence of choking to overcome resistance. The matter proceeded to trial, where Mr. Beckett challenged the complainant’s evidence and argued for an acquittal. The client was found NOT GUILTY.

R. v. G.B. [2017]
Client charged with domestic assault by his wife. Mr. Shapray retained and managed a treatment and counselling program for his client as well as ongoing negotiations with the Crown prosecutor leading to charge being dropped by the prosecutor prior to trial date being set.

R. v. K.G. [2017]
Client charged with a variety of sexual assault and assault charges by his wife. Client adamantly denied all of the allegations of sexual assault which led to negotiations and discussions with the Crown leading to all of those charges being dropped. Significant information about the wife’s conduct after the charges were laid came to light and was utilized in negotiations which led to the client resolving the case with a plea to a single assault and receiving a Conditional Discharge – NO CRIMINAL RECORD.

R. v. R.E. [2014]
Wife involved in contested divorce proceedings charged with domestic assault charges involving a weapon. Charges dropped mid-trial while we were cross-examining the complainant (husband) when serious issues about his credibility and reliability were raised.

R. v. S.D. [2013]
Domestic assault charges dropped by prosecutor prior to trial date after significant challenge to the complainant’s credibility – no criminal record.

R. v. M.M. [2013]
Multiple assault charges in family dispute dropped prior to trial after extensive negotiations between us and the prosecutor. Client entered into Peace Bond resulting in no criminal record.

R. v. V.M. [2013]
Domestic assault charges resolved with client entering into a Peace Bond – no criminal record.

Top

Sexual Offences

R. v. K.W. [2021]
Client was charged with voyeurism, and making and possessing child pornography after it was discovered he set up a covert digital recording system in a bathroom. Mr. Beckett’s negotiations with the Crown allowed the client to avoid the child pornography charges, jail, and having to register as a sex offender. The client received probation. NO JAIL. NO SOIRA.

R. v. C. [2020]
Client charged with sexual assault and unlawful confinement. Crown also applied to seize the client’s lawfully-owned firearms and his firearms license, and to prohibit him from owning firearms in the future. Counsel negotiated a peace bond on the criminal charges, resulting in no criminal record for the client, and also successfully argued to have the firearms seizure and prohibition application dropped.

R. v. S.B. [2020]
Client was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching. The matter proceeded to a preliminary inquiry in BC Provincial Court followed by a trial in BC Supreme Court, where Mr. Beckett challenged the complainant’s version of events. After the second day of Mr. Beckett’s cross-examination of the complainant at trial, the Crown stayed the proceedings (i.e., “dropped” the charges) against the client. CHARGES DROPPED.

R. v. T.L. [2020]
Client was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference. Mr. Beckett negotiated the charge down to the lesser offence of assault, the client received one year of probation, and avoided having to register as a sex offender. NO JAIL. NO RECORD FOR SEXUAL OFFENCES. NO SOIRA.

R. v. J. [2020]
Client charged with historical sex offences against a young person. Issue at trial was reliability and credibility of the complainant’s allegations, which were denied by the client. After a trial, the judge agreed that they could not find the complainant credible or reliable, and that they believed the client’s testimony denying the allegations. Client found not guilty.

R. v. M. [2020]
Client charged with obtain sexual services for consideration from person under age 18. Client was caught in police sting operation and found texting with woman who told him she was under age 18. Client attended hotel with intention to have sex with woman. Crown was initially seeking jail sentence. Defence counsel negotiated with Crown counsel to agree to the lesser offence which did not include a person under age 18 and client received conditional sentence served in community — no real jail.

R. v. J [2020]
Client charged with a historical Sexual Assault on a minor when they were working in a high school many years ago as a Youth Worker. Client loses their position in the school system as a result of the charges. After a lengthy Trial all charges dismissed and the Client was able to return to work in the Schoolsystem.

R. v. J.C. [2019]
Client charged with sexual assault and indecent act. Defence counsel outlined all weaknesses in Crown’s case to persuade Crown to cease the continuation of the prosecution. As a result of defence counsel’s diligence and trial preparation, all charges were stayed a week before trial was scheduled to commence.

R. v. G.D [2017]
Client was charged with sexual assault. The matter proceeded to trial, where Mr. Beckett challenged the complainant’s version of events and argued for an acquittal. The client was found NOT GUILTY.

R. v. G.D [2017]
Case involved an allegation of a sexual assault by a taxi driver while driving a group of intoxicated passengers home from a bar in downtown Vancouver. Issue at trial was credibility and reliability of the allegations which were denied by the accused. Mid-way through the cross-examination of the complainant, a legal issue arose which resulted in renewed negotiations with the prosecutor leading to the charges being dropped and client entering into a Peace Bond – NO CRIMINAL RECORD.

R. v. A.A. [2017]
The accused was charged with three sexual offences resulting from allegations of groping in a local mall. Discussions with prosecutor commenced well in advance of the trial and led to our office managing a treatment and counselling program for the client which ultimately resulted in the charges being dropped prior to trial.

R. v. A.M. [2014]
Client charged with historical sexual offences. Mr. Sharpray extensively cross-examined the complainant during preliminary inquiry. Case no longer met charge approval standard. Mr. Shapray made submissions to the prosecutor prior to setting case for trial. Charges dropped.

R. v. R.K. [2014]
Client charged with an indecent act in a public place. We put a counseling and treatment program into place for client during period before trial. Strategic negotiations with Crown prosecutor in advance of trial led to resolution that avoided the necessity for client to register as a sex offender. Client received Conditional Discharge on sentencing resulting in no criminal record.

R. v. H. [2014]
H charged with a number of sexual assault charges allegedly against his young daughter. Also charged with simple assault. After 6 days of trial, all sexual assault charges dismissed. H receives suspended sentence and probation for the single charge of simple assault that he admitted to.

R. v. A.R. [2013]
We were retained in the midst of a police investigation into sexual offence allegations. We became primary contact with police during this period resulting in police file closed with no criminal charges.

Top

Driving Offences

R. v. A.R. [2021]
Client received a 90-Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (“IRP”) after blowing two “FAIL” readings. IRP overturned after the adjudicator agreed with defence counsel’s arguments that, despite the officer’s claim to the contrary, the second breath test was not performed on a different approved screening device.

R. v. R. [2021]
Client charged with Impaired Driving and Driving over .08 after causing a four car collision. The Client was arrested at the scene and provided a breath sample well over the legal limit. After a full day of Trial the Crown accepts a reduced charge under the Motor Vehicle Act. Client avoids a Criminal Conviction – NO CRIMINAL RECORD!

R. v. K.R. [2020]
Client charged with several property and driving offences including dangerous operation and driving while prohibited. Defence counsel negotiated with Crown and laid out weaknesses in Crown’s case, including the frailties of the identification evidence against client as the driver of the vehicle. Crown ultimately stayed all charges related to driving as a result of defence counsel’s negotiations. Charges dismissed.

R. v. W.A. [2020]
Client charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. Criminal charges dropped and client entered a plea to driving without due care and attention under s. 144 of the Motor Vehicle Act after negotiations with Crown. NO CRIMINAL RECORD and NO DRIVING PROHIBITION.

R. v. D.L. [2020]
Client received a 90-Day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (“IRP”) after blowing two “FAIL” readings. IRP overturned after the adjudicator agreed with defence counsel’s arguments that the officer’s Report to Superintendent was a nullity due to changes the officer made to the Notice of Driving Prohibition after serving the Notice on the client.

R. v. A.S. [2019]
Client charged with Driving While Prohibited. After negotiations with Crown, charge reduced to lesser and included offence of Failing to Produce a Driver’s Licence. NO DRIVING PROHIBITION.

R. v. H.G. [2014]
90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition overturned after the adjudicator agreed with counsel’s submissions that the ASD “FAIL” readings were unreliable. Counsel argued that the “FAIL” readings were unreliable because the evidence did not establish that the ASDs were properly calibrated prior to use.

R. v. A.R. [2014]
Client received a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition for failing or refusing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device (“ASD”). 90-day IRP overturned after the adjudicator agreed with counsel’s arguments that A.R. did not willfully fail or refuse to comply with the ASD demand.

R. v. L.K. [2014]
90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition overturned following adjudicator’s finding that L.K. blew a “FAIL” on the ASDs despite the fact L.K. had a blood alcohol level under the legal limit of .08. Driver’s license returned and vehicle storage and impound costs reimbursed.

R. v. J.G. [2014]
90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition overturned after the adjudicator agreed with counsel’s submissions that the ASD “FAIL” reading was unreliable. Driver’s license returned and vehicle storage and impound costs paid for by the OSMV.

R. v. C.M. [2014]
90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition overturned in response to counsel’s arguments that C.M. was not a driver within the meaning of s. 215.41 of the Motor Vehicle Act due to the consumption alcohol after the time of driving. Driver’s license returned and vehicle storage and impound costs reimbursed.

R. v. N.H. [2014]
Client received a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition for failing or refusing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device (“ASD”). 90-day IRP overturned after the adjudicator agreed with counsel’s arguments that the ASD demand was unlawful because the officer did not have the proper grounds to make the demand.

R. v. G.J. [2014]
90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition overturned in response to counsel’s arguments that G.J. was not in care or control of his motor vehicle. Driver’s license returned and vehicle storage and impound costs reimbursed.

R. v. Z.P. [2014]
90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition overturned after the adjudicator agreed with counsel’s submissions that the ASD “FAIL” readings were unreliable due to the recent consumption of cough syrup. Driver’s license returned and vehicle storage and impound costs reimbursed.

R. v. M.R. [2014]
Client received a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition for refusing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device. 90-day IRP overturned in response to counsel’s arguments that the demand for a sample of M.R.’s breath was unlawful. Driver’s license returned and vehicle storage and impound costs reimbursed.

R. v. L.H. [2014]
90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition overturned after the adjudicator agreed with counsel’s submissions that the ASD “FAIL” readings were unreliable because the evidence did not establish that the ASDs were properly calibrated prior to use. Driver’s license returned and vehicle storage and impound costs reimbursed.

R. v. Y.W. [2014]
Client found driving with blood alcohol level 3.5 times the legal limit. Charges of Impaired Driving and Driving Over 80 reduced to a ticket for driving without due care and attention under s. 144 of the Motor Vehicle Act following negotiations with Crown counsel. No criminal record.

R. v. M.J. [2014]
Client charged with driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. Criminal charges dropped and client entered a plea to driving without due care and attention under s. 144 of the Motor Vehicle Act after negotiations with Crown counsel. No criminal record and no driving prohibition.

R. v. M.E. [2014]
Client charged with Driving While Prohibited. Charge reduced to lesser and included offence of not having a driver’s license – no driving prohibition.

R. v. D.H. [2014]
90 Day Driving Prohibition overturned after IRP hearing challenging evidence of police officer that he provided client with the option of a second roadside test. Driver’s license returned and vehicle storage and impound costs reimbursed.

R. v. P.T. [2014]
Impaired driving charges resolved with a plea to an offence under section 144 of the Motor Vehicle Act. We worked out a resolution of the case in which client is permitted to continue driving for employment and does not lose his job.

R. v. H. [2014]
H found driving with a blood alcohol content twice the legal limit. All criminal charges dropped in exchange to H pleading guilty to a ticket under the Motor Vehicle Act.

R. v. P. [2014]
T found driving while disqualified as a result of a previous impaired driving conviction. P facing multi-year driving prohibition if convicted plus possible jail sentence. Judge agrees with defence argument that insufficient evidence in Crown’s case. Result: All charges dismissed.

R. v. S.L. [2013]
Alberta client charged with impaired driving in B.C. We were retained and negotiated with prosecutor resulting in plea under the Motor Vehicle Actno criminal record and no Alberta Driving Prohibition.

R. v. D.G. [2013]
Client in Dawson Creek facing charge of Driving Over 80 has charges reduced to driving without due care under the Motor Vehicle Act – no criminal record and client permitted to enter into a probation order which allows him to drive for work purposes.

R. v. A.B. [2013]
Impaired driving charges dropped by prosecutor after pre-trial discussions regarding numerous issues in the case – no criminal record and no driving prohibition.

R. v. K.A. [2013]
Impaired driving charges in case involving a one car accident dropped with plea to offence under section 144 of the Motor Vehicle Act –no criminal record.

R. v. K.N. [2013]
Impaired driving charges withdrawn and client entered a plea under section 144 of the Motor Vehicle Act to driving without due care and attention – no driving prohibition or criminal record.

R. v. D.D. [2013]
90 Day driving prohibition involving allegation of refusal to provide a breath sample at the roadside. Factual challenge to the IRP with affidavits filed and medical letter resulting in driving prohibition being revoked.

R. v. E.V. [2013]
Successful challenge to 90 Day IRP in case involving an issue about the identity of the driver of the vehicle. We successfully persuaded the adjudicator that the police were mistaken about who was driving and the driving prohibition was revoked.

R. v. K.W. [2013]
We were successful on the challenge to this 90 Day Driving Prohibition where the client blew a fail reading on two samples taken at the roadside. Driving prohibition was revoked on the basis that there was insufficient evidence about the proper calibration of the screening devices and thus uncertainty about the validity of the test results.

R. v. M.L. [2013]
Client charged with excessive speeding. We resolved the case with a plea as a Registered Owner instead of as a driver which resulted in a significant reduction in fine and no points on driving record.

R. v. K.B. [2013]
Charges of Driving While Prohibited reduced to Driving Without a Drivers License under the Motor Vehicle Act resulting in a reduction from a minimum 12 month driving prohibition to 2 months.

R. v. J.T. [2013]
Client charged with Driving While Prohibited. Charge reduced to lesser and included offence of not having a driver’s license – no driving prohibition.

R. v. D.H. [2013]
Client charged with Driving While Prohibited. Charge reduced to the lesser and included offence of No Driver’s License – no driving prohibition.

Top

Theft, Fraud Charges, and Property Offences

R. v. A.V. [2021]
Client was charged with breaking and entering and stealing from 13 businesses over the course of several months. His fingerprints and DNA were found at the scenes of the offences and he was captured on CCTV security video. Despite the fact that the client had a lengthy, prior criminal record for breaking and entering and other offences, Mr. Beckett’s negations with the Crown allowed the client to avoid jail and serve his sentence in the community through a Conditional Sentence. NO JAIL.

R. v. R.G. [2020]
Client charged with fraud over $5000 by making repeated fraudulent transactions throughout several months, amounting to almost $10,000. Client was an employee of the store and therefore it was statutorily aggravating that she had breached her position of trust. Contested sentencing resulted in judge sentencing client to a conditional discharge – NO CRIMINAL RECORD!

R. v. S.T. [2020]
Client charges with over 20 counts of identity theft, fraud, and utter forged documents. Client used false identification to purchase a truck and was ultimately caught with several items of fraudulently created credit cards and identification cards. Crown was initially seeking global sentence of three years real jail. Client worked with counsel for several months and attended drug treatment. Crown agreed to joint submission for community sentence order — no real jail.

R. v. C.P. [2014]
Charges of fraud and identity theft involving allegations of use of a stolen credit card dropped prior to trial after we raised deficiencies in the prosecutor’s case – no criminal record.

R. v. M.R. [2013]
Client charged with fraud in relation to expenditure issues while employed for a City in the Lower Mainland. We negotiated a resolution involving partial restitution of amount alleged to have been taken. Client also received conditional sentence from Judge after sentencing submissions.

R. v. M.H. [2013]
Female client charged with multi-year fraud involving misappropriation of funds in her role as a bookkeeper. We employed a delay and counseling strategy which permitted client to obtain valuable counseling and make partial repayment of stolen funds. Client had prior criminal record but still received conditional sentence after our extensive submissions at the sentencing hearing.

Top

Weapons Offences

R. vs. H. [2017]
The client was charged with Possession of a Restricted Weapon to wit: a handgun. The accused was directed by a Police Officer to stop as he walked down the street. The accused then ran and was tackled by the Police Officer who arrested him, conducted a physical search and located the handgun. After a trial, the Judge agreed the Search was Unreasonable and excluded the evidence of the handgun resulting in the Charges being Dismissed – NOT GUILTY.

R. vs. V. [2017]
Police executed a Search Warrant at the home of the client and located a handgun in his room. Mr. Stern raised the issue of the legality of the search during a pre-trial application and was successful in persuading the Judge to rule that the police search was illegal. The evidence was then excluded from trial under the Charter and all charges were dismissed – NOT GUILTY.

R. vs. G.M. [2014]
G.M. faced minimum mandatory one year jail sentence on weapons and drug trafficking charges. Following a three day trial, G.M. is found not guilty.

R. v. M.R. [2014]
Client from the United States charged with bringing a firearm over the border into Canada. We successfully negotiated a resolution of the case with a plea to a contravention under the Customs Act instead of a criminal charge under the Criminal Code. Client received a small fine and no jail time or criminal record.

R. v. T.L. [2013]
U.S. citizen arrested and held in jail for bringing undeclared firearm over the Canadian border. Case resolved with plea involving no further jail time for client who was held in jail pending release on bail.

R. v. P.M. [2013]
Client charged with assault and firearms offences. We achieved a Conditional Discharge for client at sentencing hearing resulting in no criminal record.

Top

Border Offences

R v. D.C. [2014]
D.C. was charged with offences under the Immigration and Refugee Act for assisting the illegal entry into Canada of a person who tried to run across the border. There was evidence that D.C. had being involved I dropping of this “border jumper” in Blaine and arranging to pick them up in Canada. After five days of trial, we were able to convince the Court that D.C.’s actions did not constitute the criminal act that was charged. D.C. was found not guilty at the end of trial.

R. v. M.R. [2014]
Client from the United States charged with bringing a firearm over the border into Canada. We successfully negotiated a resolution of the case with a plea to a contravention under the Customs Act instead of a criminal charge under the Criminal Code. Client received a small fine and no jail time or criminal record.

R. v. T.L. [2013]
U.S. citizen arrested and held in jail for bringing undeclared firearm over the Canadian border. Case resolved with plea involving no further jail time for client who was held in jail pending release on bail.

Top