The Queen vs. The Defendant

Cases for Property Related Offences

  • R. v. M.C.2020

    The client was charged with theft from an employer. The the matter was set for trial. The client had a very strong defence available, and we were prepared to run the trial and to put forward the defence. However, the crown elected to withdraw the charge after restitution was forwarded to the complainant. The charge of theft was therefore withdrawn, and the client was left with no conviction, and no criminal record.

  • R. v. M.H.2019

    The client was charged with possession of a forged document, fraud under $5000, possession of drugs, breaching a CSO condition, failing to comply with a probation order, and failing to attend court. He pleaded guilty to uttering a forged document and possession of drugs. The remaining charges were withdrawn. The client was in custody at the time of his guilty plea. He was given a 15 day global sentence and 18 months probation on his previous conviction.

  • R. v. C.M.2019

    The client was charged with mischief to property under $5000. After having discussions with the crown, counsel were able to reach a resolution. The client paid restitution to the complainant and the charge against him was withdrawn.

  • R. v. B.L.2019

    The client was charged on two different dockets. On one he was charged with possession over $5000. On the second he was charged with possession over $5000, possession under $5000, two counts of failing to comply, failing to provide insurance, driving while unauthorized and operating an unregistered motor vehicle. He pleaded guilty to the possession over charge on the first docket. On the second he pleaded guilty to the possession over charge and the two counts of failing to comply. The remaining charges were withdrawn. He received 90 days incarceration on each docket, for a total of six months. This was to be followed by a period of 12 months of probation.

  • R. v. N.H.2019

    The client was charged with mischief. Initially he was charged with mischief over $5000. As the matter proceeded, the crown laid a new information to reduce the charge to mischief under $5000. After ECR discussions with the crown, a resolution was reached. The client paid restitution to the complainant. Once proof of delivery of the funds was received, the crown withdrew the charge.

  • R. v. M.G.2019

    The client was charged with fraud over $5000. The crown was approached to see if she would be open to resolving the matter, given that the charges were dated and it was debatable whether they would be able to prosecute the matter at trial. Further, the client was out of province and was not aware of the charges, as police never followed up after their interview with him, and instead issued a warrant for his arrest. He was never provided with the opportunity to voluntarily turn himself in. Given this, the crown was agreeable to referring the matter to the alternative measures program. The client was required to write an apology letter and provide restitution to the complainant. The charge was withdrawn upon his doing so.

  • R. v. M.H.2019

    The client was charged with possession of a forged document, fraud under $5000, possession of drugs, breaching a CSO condition, failing to comply with a probation order, and failing to attend court. He pleaded guilty to uttering a forged document and possession of drugs. The remaining charges were withdrawn. The client was in custody at the time of his guilty plea. He was given a 15 day global sentence and 18 months probation on his previous conviction.

  • R. v. C.M.2019

    The client was charged with mischief to property under $5000. After having discussions with the crown, counsel were able to reach a resolution. The client paid restitution to the complainant and the charge against him was withdrawn.

  • R. v. B.L.2019

    The client was charged on two different dockets. On one he was charged with possession over $5000. On the second he was charged with possession over $5000, possession under $5000, two counts of failing to comply, failing to provide insurance, driving while unauthorized and operating an unregistered motor vehicle. He pleaded guilty to the possession over charge on the first docket. On the second he pleaded guilty to the possession over charge and the two counts of failing to comply. The remaining charges were withdrawn. He received 90 days incarceration on each docket, for a total of six months. This was to be followed by a period of 12 months of probation.

  • R. v. N.H.2019

    The client was charged with mischief. Initially he was charged with mischief over $5000. As the matter proceeded, the crown laid a new information to reduce the charge to mischief under $5000. After ECR discussions with the crown, a resolution was reached. The client paid restitution to the complainant. Once proof of delivery of the funds was received, the crown withdrew the charge.

  • R. v. M.G.2019

    The client was charged with fraud over $5000. The crown was approached to see if she would be open to resolving the matter, given that the charges were dated and it was debatable whether they would be able to prosecute the matter at trial. Further, the client was out of province and was not aware of the charges, as police never followed up after their interview with him, and instead issued a warrant for his arrest. He was never provided with the opportunity to voluntarily turn himself in. Given this, the crown was agreeable to referring the matter to the alternative measures program. The client was required to write an apology letter and provide restitution to the complainant. The charge was withdrawn upon his doing so.

  • R. v. W.W.2019

    The client was charged on multiple files and his offences included two charges of possession of property obtained by crime under $5000.00, two charges of fraud under $5000.00, mischief to property under $5000.00, possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose, carrying a concealed weapon, and two charges of failing to comply with an undertaking (release/bail). The crown was initially seeking probation for the charges. However, I negotiated a resolution whereby my client was referred for a second time to the Mental Health Diversion program. The client was accepted into the program and upon completion of the requirements, all the charges on all of the files were withdrawn.

  • R. v. H.C.2019

    The client was charged with mischief under $5000.00 (damaging a car). I met with the crown prosecutor to discuss the file, and they agreed to an outright withdrawal of the charge. My client was left with no criminal record and no conviction.

  • R. v. D.L.2019

    The client was charged with possession of stolen property under $5000.00. The matter was trivial in that the police should not have charged my client. I worked with my client to gather information and documentation that assisted me in negotiating with the crown for a complete withdrawal of the charge. The matter was concluded with the charge dropped, and my client was left with no criminal record and no conviction.

  • R. v. F.A.2019

    The client was charged with theft under $5000.00 and assaulting a peace officer. Initial discussions with the crown yielded a negative response to having the matter differed to the alternative measures program. However, during further discussions and negotiations with the crown, I was able to convince them to refer the matter to a diversion program. Once the client completed the requirements of the program, the charges again her were withdrawn.

  • R. v. J.M.2019

    The client was charged with possession of stolen property over $5000.00, possession of stolen property under $5000.00, and mischief (damage to property). Subsequent to being charged with that set of charges, he was also charged with two counts of failing to appear and another count of failing to comply with conditions of release (bail). I convinced the crown to drop all charges and to only have my client plead to one count of failing to comply with release, for which he received a small fine.

  • R. v. S.A.2019

    The client was charged with theft under $5000.00. The client had related referrals to diversion in the past. However, I was able to convince the crown to agree to another referral to diversion. Once the client completed the requirements of the program, the charge was withdrawn.

  • R. v. J.R.2019

    The client was charged with theft under $5000.00 (shoplifting). I convinced the crown to agree to refer the matter to the Alternative Measures Program. Upon completion of the requirements, the charge was withdrawn (dropped).

  • R. v. D.G.2019

    The client was charged with theft under $5000.00, mischief and failing to appear for identification. The failure charge was at warrant status, as the date noted on the promise to appear wasn't clear, and the client showed up for fingerprinting on the date he thought the notice said. The crown agreed to bring the warrant forward and have the charge withdrawn on the first court date, given the circumstances. Originally the file was not approved for the alternative measures program. However, after case resolution discussions with the crown, they agreed to withdraw the charges outright, based on the fact that the client had already paid for the damage, and the disclosure package did not give a full picture of what had actually happened.

  • R. v. P.G.2019

    The client was charged with theft under $5000.00 (shoplifting). I met with the crown to discuss the prospect of having the charge dropped outright. The crown agreed, and the charge was dropped in court. My client was left without a criminal record and without a conviction.

  • R. v. S.K.2019

    The client was charged with theft under $5000.00. Initially, the crown prosecutor would not agree to referring the matter to the Alternative Measures Program. I had the client complete tasks and obtain documentation and information for me, that I then went to the crown with. I was able to negotiate a resolution of the matter by way of a referral to the diversion program. Once the client had successfully completed the requirements of the program, the charge was withdrawn (dropped). It was important for my client's employment that he did not have a conviction. I was able to give him that peace of mind.

  • R. v. V.M.2019

    The client was charged with multiple counts of fraud, possession of stolen property, possession of drugs, and several other fraud related charges. The client had a different lawyer representing him at first and was told that his sentence would be three years in custody. When I came on as the client's lawyer, I was able to negotiate with the crown to reduce the sentence to eighteen months upon his pleas to several charges. I saved the client a significant amount of time in custody.

  • R. v. R.T.2019

    The client was charged with mischief to property under $5000.00. Though the crown was initially unwilling to refer the matter to the Alternative Measures Program, once I provided the crown with further information and had further discussions with them, they agreed to refer my client. Once my client completed the requirements of the program for the mischief charge, it was dropped and the matter was concluded, leaving my client with no criminal record and no conviction.

  • R. v. K.W.2019

    The client was charged with mischief and being unlawfully in a dwelling house. The charges were treated very seriously by the crown, as the complainant alleged that the client broke into the residence and damaged property in doing so. There was a lot of negotiating with the crown that I had to do to have the crown agree to resolve the matter by way of a peace bond versus proceeding with the charges. It was important my client did not have a record due to employment requirements. The charges of mischief and being unlawfully in a dwelling house were dropped (withdrawn).

  • R. v. S.U.2019

    The client was charged with possession of stolen property and possession of a stolen credit card. The allegations would have had serious ramifications for the client's employment. I was able to convince the prosecutor to refer the matter to a diversion program. Upon completion of the requirements of the program, the charges were withdrawn (dropped). The client was left without a criminal record and without a conviction.