Cell: 403-478-2764 Fax: 403-407-0920
2025
R v RY
RY was charged with possession of cocaine and methamphetamine for the purposes of trafficking. The accused was lawfully pulled over in a traffic stop and arrested for warrants. A backpack containing a large amount of drugs and drug dealing paraphernalia was seized by police. The matter was set for trial. After negotiations, the Crown agreed they could not prove RY's possession of the backpack, given the other passenger in the front seat who was let go without questioning during the course of the traffic stop. The charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v TL
TL was charged for being in possession of a large quantity (84 grams) of fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking. Matthew Walton was retained during the middle of the trial after TL had dismissed his prior lawyer. After cross examination of the Crown's expert witness and testimony provided by TL, the Judge found the Crown had failed to prove possession for the purpose of trafficking and convicted TL of simple possession, which attracted a 30 day jail sentence. A conviction for trafficking fentanyl has a starting point of 6 years jail.
R v QM
QM was charged with assault with a weapon and mischief for offences alleged against his common-law partner and roommate. The matter was set for trial. After crown witnesses failed to attend, the charges were WITHDRAWN.
R v MPD
MPD was charged with a major sexual assault. The matter was set for trial. A section 276 notice was provided to the Crown which set out inconsistencies in the statement the complainant provided to police, specifically in regards to a prior sexual encounter MPD had with the complainant, which she lied to police about. After reviewing the materials and re-interviewing the complainant, a PEACEBOND resolution was offered. This ensured that MPD avoided jail and a criminal record.
R v FS
FS was charged with fraud over $5000. The allegations involved misappropriation of social assistance funds which exceeded $80,000. After the matter was set for trial, extensive negotiations occurred with the Crown, which resulted in FS receiving a sentence of probation, with no restitution of the $80,000 required.
R v JS
JS was charged with possession of a stolen motorcycle valued at over $5000. After defence provided evidence to the Crown which showed JS had purchased the motorcycle at a lower value believing it was not stolen, the charges were WITHDRAWN.
R v KW
KW was charged with break and entering and mischief. The allegations involved him going to a residential property, destroying camera surveillance equipment and smashing a window to gain access to the property. Defence reviewed the lacking evidence with the Crown and the charges were WITHDRAWN before a trial date had to be set.
R v RW
RW was charged with refusal under the Immediate Roadside Sanction (IRS) program. The matter was appealed as the refusal was unequivocal and related to RW asking to speak to a lawyer. The officer did not properly explain to RW that his right to speak to a lawyer was suspended while under an approved screening device demand. The appeal was SUCCESSFUL, the IRS cancelled and RW was allowed to drive again.
2024
R v NA
NA was charged with 4 counts of breaking and entering into residences and 2 counts of theft of motor vehicles from the homes. After reviewing the lack of identification evidence with the Crown, the charges were WITHDRAWN before a trial date had been set.
R v KB
KB was charged with possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. The charges related to KB bringing a knife to school and threatening to harm other students. After negotiations with the Crown, the charge was referred to Mental Health Diversion and later WITHDRAWN.
R v AB
AB was charged with fraud over $5000 in relation to a social assistance misreporting that resulted in overpayment of $40,000. After negotiations with the Crown, the matter was resolved with a lesser offence under the Income and Employment Support Act, which resulted in no criminal record for AB and no restitution payments required.
R v MB
MB was charged with failing to stop at the scene of a motor vehicle accident, resulting in death. The allegations involved MB driving home from work after a night shift and running over an individual who had wondered into a darkened street outside a crosswalk area. The matter was originally set for trial. Defence engaged in extensive pretrial negotiations with the Crown, pointing to issues surrounding MB's statement to police being taken passed the legal 24 hour holding period, and the limited evidence of MB's knowledge that the motor vehicle collided with a person. The matter resolved before trial on a 6 month CONDITIONAL SENTENCE ORDER, which allowed MB to avoid spending anytime in jail.
R v DBO
DBO was charged with unlawful possession of a loaded shotgun. The charges arose after she had driven her common-law partner home, who was later arrested on unrelated charges. Police searched the vehicle after arrest and located the firearm. The matter was set for trial. After negations with the Crown setting out issues of DBO's possession of the firearm, the charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v DB
DB was charged with allegations of sexual assault and sexual interference. The matter was set for trial and following negotiations with the Crown, all charges were WITHDRAWN before trial commenced.
R v TC
TC was charged with possession of methamphetamine and cocaine for the purposes of trafficking, as well as unlawful possession of a shotgun. After determining there were no triable issues, a resolution strategy was implemented, which saw TC receive a CONDITIONAL SENTENCE ORDER and avoid jail.
R v RF
RF was charged on two separate offences for assaulting her boyfriend and his 7 year old child. Both matters were set for trial. On the day of the first trial, defence provided video recorded evidence to the Crown in which the child admitted to being pressured by his mother to make up the assault allegations against RF. The charges against RF in relation to the child were WITHDRAWN before the trial started. The charges against the boyfriend were WITHDRAWN a few days later.
R v MG
MG was a youth charged with assault with a weapon and mischief. Following a verbal altercation, a group of teenagers threw a rock at the complainant's car and smashed his windshield. The complainant got out with a baseball bat and one of the young persons stabbed the complainant. The matter was set for trial. Negotiations were held with the Crown which brought up issues of self defence and credibility/reliability of the complainant. The charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v JI
JI was charged with breaking and entering into a residential property and theft of over $200,000 worth of jewellery and designer handbags. The matter proceeded to trial and after the lack of identification evidence was raised to the Judge, JI was found NOT GUILTY after trial.
R v TI
TI was charged with assault against his domestic partner. The matter was set for trial. After no Crown witnesses attended, the charges were WITHDRAWN on the day of trial.
R v JI
JI was charged with assault causing bodily harm against his domestic partner. The matter was set for trial. After negotiations with the Crown, the charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v TK
TK was charged with possession for purposes of trafficking a significant amount of methamphetamine. After determining no triable issues were available, a contested sentencing was held, in which defence successfully argued TK receive a Conditional Sentence Order, which kept her out of jail.
R v SL
SL was charged with assault with a weapon for striking the complainant in the head with a crowbar. The matter was set for trial. When no Crown witnesses attended on the day of the trial, the charges were WITHDRAWN.
R v KM
KM was charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purposes of trafficking. After police executed a search warrant, a lock box in her bedroom containing a significant quantity of drugs was located. A key to the lockbox was later seized by the police from her pocket. The matter was set for trial. After defence raised possession issues with other occupants in the home, the charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v AP
AP was charged with two counts of assaulting his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend. The matter was set for trial. After no Crown witnesses attended, the charges were WITHDRAWN.
R v NP
NP was charged with aggravated assault and failing to provide the necessaries of life for her infant child. The matter involved an intensive police investigation after significant bone fractures were noted when the 3 month old child was admitted to the hospital. The matter was set for trial. After lengthy negotiations with the Crown, a resolution was reached which saw NP receive a 6 month CONDITIONAL SENTENCE ORDER and avoid jail.
R v SR
SR was charged with second degree murder. The investigation arose after a lengthy police investigation involving SR being the target of a Mr. Big operation. SR had stabbed the deceased while trying to stop him from assaulting a female. SR had then engaged in a number of actions of post offence conduct, such as the burning of the deceased's motor vehicle. The matter was set for a Judge and Jury trial. Lengthy pretrial applications occurred, including, the Mr. Big statement admissibility and Scopelliti evidence to lead the deceased's violent criminal record. Following negotiations which focused on the Crown's lack of ability to negate a self defence claim, the matter resolved on the day of trial to the lesser offence of manslaughter and a 9 year jail sentence. A conviction for second degree murder carries a mandatory life sentence in jail.
R v BR
BR was charged with aggravated assault for striking the complainant in the head with a hammer. The complainant suffered very significant and life altering injuries. BR was arrested and went on to provide a confession to police. The matter was set for trial. Defence raised a Charter argument to exclude his statement, given BR was not properly afforded his section 10(b) right to counsel within a reasonable period of time after his arrest. The Judge agreed and BR's confession was excluded from trial. There was not otherwise sufficient evidence to convict BR and the Judge found him NOT GUILTY.
R v JS
JS was charged with possession for the purposes of trafficking methamphetamine after a search warrant was executed on the house he was temporarily residing in. Defence raised issues surrounding the quantity of drugs seized not amounting to more than simple possession. The charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v KW
KW was charged with assault against his common-law partner. The matter was set for trial. After no Crown witnesses could be subpoenaed, the charges were WITHDRAWN in advance of trial.
R v NY
NY was charged with possession of fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking and possession of a loaded firearm. The charges arose after a significant period of police surveillance detailing NY and her boyfriend engaging in activities consistent with drug trafficking. Both individuals were arrested in a motor vehicle with narcotics and a loaded firearm. The matter was set for trial. Following negotiations with the Crown on issues of possession, all of NY's charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v SC
SC was charged with arson after the guest home he was residing in had burned down. After discussions with the crown on the complete lack of evidence, the charges were WITHDRAWN before a trial had to be set.
R v AL
AL had previously plead guilty to a 1.2 million dollar fraud. This arose from a complex scheme involving multiple investors and impersonation of a Judge. Matthew Walton was retained for the purposes of sentencing. A lengthy contested sentencing hearing was held, wherein AL was sentenced to 5 years jail.
R v NP
NP was charged with fraud arising from misappropriation of social assistance funds exceeding $30,000. Following a contested sentencing hearing, NP was given a 4 month CONDITIONAL SENTENCE ORDER, which saw him avoid jail.
R v DR
DR was charged with aggravated assault against his domestic parter. The allegations involved a significant degree of injury to the complaint's face. DR was arrested alone in the complainant's home. On the day of trial, a resolution was reached which saw a guilty plea to the lesser of offence of assault causing bodily harm. This allowed DR to be released on the day of trial at a time served jail sentence.
R v TR
TR was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference. The matter was set for trial. After a pretrial conference was held and discussion raised on the credibility/reliability of the complainant, the charges were WITHDRAWN a month before the trial date was set to commence.
R v KS
KS was charged with possession of stolen property and firearms after police executed a search warrant on the home she was residing in. The matter was set for trial. Defence raised issues to the Crown on KS's possession, given the other occupants residing in the home. The charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v KW
KW was charged with assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and forcible confinement of his girlfriend. The matter was set for trial. After the complainant failed to attend court to testify, the Crown made application to lead her statement as an exception to hearsay under "res gestae", meaning it was made immediately after the events occurred and under duress. Defence successfully opposed the admission of the hearsay statement. KW was found NOT GUILTY after trial.
2023
R v OA
OA was charged break and entering into a home and armed robbery with a firearm. The allegations involved OA and another co-accused female entering into the complainant's home and forcing him to leave at gun point. The suspects brought him to an ATM where he withdrew money and handed it over. The complainant had successfully identified OA in a photo lineup. The matter was set for trial. Defence challenged the composition of the photo lineup and thoroughly cross-examined the complainant on the identification evidence, namely that the complainant had failed to previously identify a prominent scar across OA's eyebrow. OA was found NOT GUILTY of all charges after trial.
R v MB
MB was charged with break and entering into a home and robbery with a knife. The charges arose after OA returned to his prior rental home to retrieve property that he claimed belonged to him. The matter was set for trial. After discussions with the Crown on the credibility and reliability of the complainant, the charges were WITHDRAWN on the day of trial.
R v JB
JB was charged with kidnapping and aggravated assault. The allegations involved JB and two co-accused kidnapping the complainant, slicing her wrist with a knife and then demanding money from a third party. A significant police surveillance investigation arose during the alleged kidnapping, which followed JB's van over a 12 hour period. The matter was set for trial. After defence pointed out the many inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, all charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v EC
EC was charged with two separate firearms offences. One involved pointing a handgun and threatening his girlfriend's parents. The second involved bringing a loaded handgun onto the C-train and threatening another passenger. After determining there were no defences, a contested sentencing hearing was held. Defence successfully argued for a sentence of 2 years and probation, which allowed EC to be released from custody on the day of sentencing. The Crown had sought a much higher sentence of 4.5 years of jail.
R v DC
DC was charged with dangerous driving. The matter was set for trial. After defence met with the crown and discussed the lack of identification evidence, the charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v DC
DC was charged with criminal harassment against his ex-girlfriend. The matter was set for trial. After negotiations with the crown, a PEACE BOND was offered, which allowed the DC to avoid trial and a criminal record.
R v LG
LG was charged with numerous criminal offences, including 2 counts of driving while unauthorized, and 4 counts of failing to appear in court. After completing programming through Calgary Indigenous Court, all of LG's charges were WITHDRAWN.
Rv MK
MK was charged with assault. The charges arose after MK assaulted a process server who attended his house to serve him a civil claim for unrelated legal proceedings. After discussions with the Crown, the charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v JKO
JKO was charged with assault against her two stepchildren. The matter was originally set for trial. After negotiations with the Crown, a join sentencing position was agreed where JKO successfully received a CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE. This allowed her to avoid a trial against her stepchildren and avoid criminal record.
R v DM
DM was charged with criminal harassment against his ex-wife. The matter was set for trial. After cross-examination of 4 crown witness and DM providing his own testimony, the Judge found DM NOT GUILTY.
R v KP
KP was charged with selling an ounce of cocaine to an undercover police officer. After determining there were no triable issues, a contested sentencing hearing was held, wherein KP was granted an 18 month CONDITIONAL SENTENCE ORDER and avoided spending anytime in jail.
R v MR
MR was charged with armed robbery of a convenience store. Police obtained a search warrant, where they found packaged of cigarettes taken from the store, and a vehicle in the garage which matched the vehicle seen on CCTV from the robbery. Defence filed a Charter notice challenging the issuance of the search warrant. The charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v MR
MR was charged with assault against his common-law partner. The matter was set for trial. After Crown witnesses did not attend for trial, the charges were WITHDRAWN.
R v AS
AS was charged with criminal offences of causing a disturbance on an airplane, and further offences of endangering the safety and security of an aircraft under the Aeronautics Act. AS became enraged after his flight headed for Calgary was suddenly rerouted to Edmonton. He got into a verbal argument with staff on board. After discussing the case with the Crown, all charges were WITHDRAWN on the day of AS' first appearance in court.
R v CS
CS was charged with fraud under $5000. The charge arose after she had taken her mother's dog to the veterinarian to receive emergency surgery. An argument occurred over the bill far exceeding the estimate provided and there was confusion over whether her or her mother was going to pay the bail. The matter was set for trial. After discussions with the Crown, the charge was WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v JS
JS was charged with sexual interference against two complainants. The matter was set for trial. After extensive cross-examination of both complainant's and JS's testimony, the Judge found JS NOT GUILTY of all charges.
R v DT
DT was charged with possession of stolen property. The charges arose after he was arrested in a truck containing a number of stolen items. The matter was set for trial. Defence filed a Charter notice, alleging police arbitrarily detained DT by engaging in a traffic stop that was a pretext for a criminal investigation. The charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v DT
DT was charged with impaired operation under the Immediate Roadside Sanction (IRS) program after providing a "FAIL" on the approved screening device. The matter was appealed as the approved screening device was used past the calibration period. The appeal was SUCCESSFUL, the IRS cancelled and DT was allowed to drive again.
R v JW
JW was charged with possession for the purposes of trafficking fentanyl and methamphetamine. The charges arose after she was arrested in a vehicle containing drugs and drug dealing paraphernalia. The matter was set for trial. Defence argued with the Crown about the lack of evidence of JW's possession, given the multiple occupants in the vehicle. The charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
2022
R v JA
JA was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm in a motor vehicle. The police were called to investigate another stolen motor vehicle parked next to MA's motor vehicle. The stolen motor vehicle had left before police arrived. Police arrested MA at gun point and searched the vehicle and found the firearm. The matter was set for trial. Defence argued the manner of arrest turned any investigative detention into a full arrest, resulting in an arbitrary detention. Following this, the search of the motor vehicle was unlawful and in breach of JA's s.8 Charter rights. Furthermore, police breached JA's right to counsel by the unnecessary delay in advising him of rights and placing him in a phone room. All charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v PB
PB was charged with historical sexual interference against two complainants. The matter was set for a Judge Alone trial in Queen's Bench. At trial, the first complainant was throughly cross-examined on issues of collusion. During the second complainant's testimony, she admitted under direct-examination to having made up the entirety of the allegations against PB. The Judge went on to find PB NOT GUILTY of all charges.
R v CB
CB was charged with two counts of robberies from a liquor store and pharmacy. Both involved threats of violence to the store clerks. The matter was set for trial. Following negotiations with the Crown, a resolution was reached wherein CB was released at his sentencing date on a sentence of 1 year time served. The starting point for a robbery of a commercial establishment is 3 years.
R v ME
ME was charged with assault with a weapon against his ex-girlfriend. The matter was set for trial. Following cross-examination of the crown witnesses, the charges were WITHDRAWN mid trial before defence had to call evidence from ME.
R v JK
JK was charged with theft over $5000, from allegations relating to embezzling $20,000 in an investment scheme. The matter was set for trial. After reviewing the lacking evidence to prosecute the theft, the charge was WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v AK
AK was charged with assault against her domestic partner, as well as assaulting a police officer. The matter was set for trial. Defence discussed the issues of self defence and credibility/reliability of the complainant. The charges were WITHDRAWN on the day of trial.
R v DL
DL was charged with domestic violence offences against his common-law partner. The matter was set for trial. When no Crown witnesses attended, the charges were WITHDRAWN.
R v KM
KM was charged with break and enter and theft of a motor vehicle from a residence. The matter was set for trial. After defence discussed the lacking identification evidence with the Crown, the charges were WITHDRAWN.
R v CM
CM was charged with impaired driving after having crashed his vehicle into a median. The matter was set for trial. Defence filed a Charter notice arguing the police breached CM's rights by arresting him and having him provide breath samples without reasonable grounds that he was impaired by alcohol. The charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v MM
MM was charged with 4 counts of fraud over $5000. MM was alleged to have been part of a multiparty scam which involved calling elderly individuals, pretending to be their grandchildren and seeking bail payments for their release from custody. MM was alleged to have gone to their homes to collect the payments. The matter was set for trial. After discussions with the Crown on the lack of identification evidence, all charges were WITHDRAWN against MM.
R v CP
CP was charged with impaired driving. He was pulled over after having driven over the centre line twice. Police noted a smell of alcohol on his breath and arrested him for impaired driving. He was brought back to the station and provided breath samples which indicated he was impaired. Defence filed a Charter notice which alleged the police did not have reasonable grounds to arrest him for impaired operation. The charges were WITHDRAWN on the day of trial.
R v JP
JP was charged with assaulting a Sheriff at a court house protest. The matter was set for trial. Defence reviewed the video evidence with the Crown, which showed the Sheriff as the primary instigator during the physical altercation. The charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v KW
KW was charged with assault. The matter was set for trial. Defence discussed the issue of the complainant's credibility and reliability with the Crown, which resulted in the charges being WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v AY
AY was charged with fraud over $5000, resulting from the misreporting on social assistance and overpayment of $14,000. After determining no triable issues existed, a contested sentencing hearing was held where AY was granted a CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE, which allowed her to avoid a criminal record.
2021
R v GA
GA was convicted after trial of sexual assault. Matthew Walton was retained only for the purposes of sentencing after conviction. At a contested sentencing hearing, the caselaw and appropriate sentencing considerations were reviewed with the Judge, who imposed the 3 month sentence recommended by defence. The Crown unsuccessfully sought a jail sentence of 1 year.
R v DB
DB was charged with assaulting his common-law partner. The complainant had provided a written recant of the original allegations. The recant was provided to the Crown on the day of trial and the charges were WITHDRAWN.
R v FB
FB was charged with impaired driving after being found asleep behind the wheel of a running vehicle on the side of the Trans Canada Highway. The matter was set for trial, and defence raised issues with a unlawful strip search that occurred at the police station. On the day of trial, the Crown offered a plea to a lesser offence of careless driving, which saw the client avoid a criminal record and a 1 year driving prohibition.
R v AB
AB was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample after being pulled over for operating a Seadoo while allegedly impaired by alcohol. The matter was set for trial and a Charter notice provided to the Crown which set out an argument on arbitrary detention by AB being transported back to the police station rather than released on the side of the road. The charges were WITHDRAWN on the day of trial.
R v JCL
JCL was charged with assault causing bodily harm against his common-law partner. The matter was set for trial. After the Crown was unable to locate the complainant to serve a subpoena, the charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v EB
EB was charged with impaired driving after being found asleep behind the wheel of a motor vehicle that had collided with a wall. The matter was set for trial. A Charter notice was provided to the crown, which set out issues surrounding EB's arrest, and his section 10(b) right to counsel. The charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v DD
DD was charged with a major sexual assault during a stay in a hotel with a young woman. The matter was set for trial. Negotiations occurred and on the day of trial, and DD was offered a plea to simple assault and PROBATION, which avoided trial and a potential penitentiary sentence for DD.
R v JE
JE was charged with assault with a weapon. JE suffered from blindness and several cognitive delays. He was alleged to have hit someone with his walking stick. A negotiation was worked out with the Crown which saw JE's charges go through Mental Health Diversion. After completing some counselling, JE's charges were WITHDRAWN.
R v ME
ME was charged with possession of stolen property and possession of a firearm. ME was in a stolen truck towing a stolen trailer holding another stolen truck. The truck had driven off the side of the highway and was in the ditch. Police approached the scene and arrested ME at gun point. The matter was set for trial and defence filed a Charter notice arguing the police manner of arrest turned the investigative detention into a full arrest and arbitrary detention. The police did not have grounds to arrest or legitimate safety concerns leading to arrest by gun point at the time they arrived on scene. The charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v RG
RG and the complainant were cross charged with assault with a weapon. A verbal disagreement lead to RG being hit with a crowbar by the complainant, and RG then stabbing the complainant with a piece of broken glass. After negotiations with the crown, RG was offered a PEACEBOND and avoided a criminal record. This matter was conducted on a pro bono basis.
R v TG
TG was charged with impersonation, criminal harassment, public mischief, and sending indecent materials through mail. The allegations involved sending threatening and obscene materials to a company, and signing the materials off as the chief of police of Calgary. The matter was set for trial. Discussions with the Crown occurred surrounding the issues of proving the identity of TG as the person who mailed the letter. The charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v EH and TH
Both individuals were charged with public health violations for not wearing a mask in public at the beginning stages of the Covid-19 pandemic. The crown sought fines of $5000 per individual. At a contested sentencing, the Judge imposed total fines of $2250 for both individual combined.
R v KJ
KJ was charged with assault with a weapon against his domestic partner. KJ raised alibi evidence which indicated he was with another person on the date of the assault. The charges were WITHDRAWN during the middle of the trial.
R v CJ
CJ was charged with impaired operation and refusal. A Charter notice was filed which alleged the crown did not have reasonable grounds to arrest for impaired operation. The matter proceeded to trial. Defence thoroughly cross examined the arresting officer, which resulted in the charges being WITHDRAWN by the Crown, before defence finished cross examination.
R v CJ
CJ was charged with breaking and entering into his ex-girlfriend's home. The matter was set for trial. Defence provided crown evidence which showed CJ had a colour of right to enter into the home. The charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v ALW
ALW was charged with public mischief, obstruction of justice and interfering with human remains. The charges arose after an accidental discharge of a firearm at ALW's house had resulted in the death of an individual. ALW's assisted in transporting the deceased individual and throwing the body in the bow river. The body was never located. ALW then assisted in the destruction of evidence and clean up of the crime scene. After determining there were no triable issues, a contested sentencing hearing was held where ALW was granted a CONDITIONAL SENTENCE ORDER. The crown had sought a penitentiary jail sentence.
R v MM
MM was charged with numerous firearms and drug trafficking offences after police executed a search warrant on her home. The matter was set for trial. A Charter notice was filed which challenged the issuance of the warrant on insufficient police surveillance to substantiate confidential informants. The charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v TM
TM was charged with unlawful possession of a sawed off shotgun with readily accessible ammunition. At trial, defence challenged the firearms expert, who was unable to prove the ammunition was capable of being discharged from the shotgun, as photographs were unable to show the gauge of the ammunition. TM was charged with the lesser offence of possession of the firearm, which attracted a much lower jail sentence. TM was released on time served after trial.
R v MS
MS was charged with impaired operation of a boat on Sylvan Lake. The matter was set for trial. Defence filed a Charter Notice, challenging the reasonable and probable grounds that existed for arresting MS. The charges were WITHDRAWN on the day of trial.
R v AZ
AZ was charged with public mischief. The charges arose after her vehicle was found abandoned and on fire on the side of the road outside of Banff. AZ was alleged to have falsely reported a vehicle accident. Defence filed a Charter notice to exclude AZ's statement to police, as she was not properly advised of the reason for her detention or her right to counsel while at the police station. The Charges were WITHDRAWN on the day of trial.
2020
R v SA
SA was charged with impaired driving. Defence argued the police breached his Charter rights during the course of the investigation; the police did not have reasonable suspicion he had alcohol in his body to administer the approved screening device test, and the police failed to administer the approved screening device forthwith, after delaying the test for 11 minutes. The Crown prosecutor agreed and the charges were WITHDRAWN on the day of trial.
R v MA
MA was charged with robbery of a liquor store as a youth. He was caught on camera discharging bear spray during the robbery. He entered a guilty plea to the offence. While the Crown sought a period of actual custody, defence successfully argued for a deferred custody sentence, allowing the young person to serve their sentence in the community.
R v DB
DB was charged with breaking into a dwelling house and assault causing bodily harm. After no Crown witnesses attended for trial, the prosecutor called no evidence and DB was found NOT GUILTY.
R v JB
JB was charged with flight from police and dangerous driving. His vehicle along with license plate number were observed driving recklessly through the town. The police obtained JB's address, went to his house and arrested him. While arresting him, they entered the home and seized the keys to the vehicle. Defence argued the warrantless search of his condo and later underground parking garage, violated his s.8 Charter rights. All charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v KD
KD was charged with careless driving. The vehicle in front of him had stopped on the highway at the bottom of a hill, due to deer passing. KD rear ended the vehicle at a high rate of speed. Police subjected KD to an approved screening device, which indicated he had been drinking but was not legally intoxicated. At trial, defence successfully argued to exclude the alcohol related evidence. The Judge found there was reasonable doubt the driving was careless. KD was found NOT GUILTY.
R v MD
MD was charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking. The police saw MD in an alley making a hand deal. They approached him and forced him to open his hand, revealing meth. MD was then arrested and searched, revealing more drugs and drug dealing paraphernalia. The matter was set for trial, and defence filed a Charter notice alleging the police violated MD's rights by arresting him without grounds and illegally searching him. The charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v DE
DE was charged with assault with a weapon and criminal mischief against her common-law partner. Defence successfully negotiated a deal with the prosecutor which involved a PEACE BOND, meaning the matter did not need to proceed to trial and DE did not receive a criminal record.
R v BG
BG was charged with trafficking cocaine. After police received a crime stoppers tip that her phone number was link to trafficking, police engaged in a drug buy and BG sold cocaine to the police on 5 separate occasions. Defence argued with the Crown that the police had no reasonable suspicion to begin the undercover operation and had entrapped BG. The Crown agreed with the entrapment defence and all charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v SW
SW was charged with assault against his common-law partner. At trial defence cross-examined the complainant, who admitted on the stand she had lied to police. The charges were WITHDRAWN by the Crown before defence finished cross examining the witness.
R v JJ
JJ was charged with illegal possession of a loaded firearm. While driving, police stopped JJ because he did not match the registered owner of the vehicle. During the traffic stop, the police saw a shotgun shell on the floor of the vehicle and arrested the accused, searched the vehicle, and found the firearm. Defence filed a Charter Notice alleging the police had arbtirarily detained JJ by the initial traffic stop. The charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v LM
LM was charged with theft and assault. While inside a pharmacy, LM had concealed merchandise, and as he was leaving, body slammed the security guard who tried to stop him. At a contested sentencing hearing, LM was given a CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE, which allowed to remain free of a criminal record.
R v TM
TM was charged with assault causing bodily harm. The complaint suffered significant facial injuries. The matter was set for trial, and when no Crown witnesses attended, the charges were WITHDRAWN.
R v MP
MP was charged with aggravated assault for stabbing his common-law partner multiple times. A contested sentencing hearing was held wherein the Judge imposed the jail sentence of 4 years recommended by defence counsel. The Crown prosecutor had sought a sentence of 8 years. The Judge also agreed with the defence counsel and gave MP a DOUBLE CREDIT for his pre-sentence custody, which was spent in the remand centre during Covid-19.
R v LPK
LPK was charged with assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and criminal mischief against his domestic partner. LPK provided multiple voice mails left by the complainant after the charges were laid, in which she threatened LPK financially and physically. Rather than wait till trial, defence met with the Crown in advance, went through the voice mails and the charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v BR
BR was charged with a strangling assault against her teenage daughter. The matter was set for trial. Defence pointed to a number of issues surrounding the arrest of BR, including entering her home without a warrant and an illegal strip search that occurred at the police station. Because of these issues, the prosecutor offered a resolution involving a PEACE BOND. This allowed BR to avoid a trial against her daughter and kept her free of a criminal record.
R v JR
JR was charged with robbery. The matter was set for trial and when no crown witnesses attended to testify, the charges were WITHDRAWN.
R v CS
CS was charged with assault via choking against his ex-wife. The matter proceeded to trial. After cross-examination of the complainant and testimony provided by CS, the Judge found CS NOT GUILTY.
R v ES
ES was charged with assaulting her teenage daughter. The allegations included the child being scolded with hot water. After meeting with the Crown and showing discrepancies in the complainant's statement and physical evidence, a PEACE BOND resolution was reached, which resulted in ES avoiding a trial against her daughter and avoiding a criminal record.
R v JT
JT was charged with driving while disqualified. The matter was set for trial. JT had been provided erroneous information while at the registrar, which gave him a belief his license was validly reinstated. The officially induced error defence was provided to the Crown in advance of trial and the charges were WITHDRAWN.
2017-2019
These cases were completed while Matthew Walton was still in law school.
R v HT
HT was charged with possession of fentanyl. He was arrested after police searched his wallet looking for identification following a motor vehicle collision. Upon finding his identification, police also found a pill of fentanyl. The matter proceeded to trial. Defence argued the search of his wallet violated his section 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Defence further argued police violated his section 10(b) Charter rights by failing to facilitate HT's access to a lawyer once he was taken to the hospital. The Judge agreed and excluded the drug evidence from the trial. HT was found NOT GUILTY.
R v MC
MC was charged with impaired driving. She provided a fail on the approved screening device and was brought back to the police station where she further provided breath samples which indicated she was intoxicated. At trial, defence argued police violated MC's section 9 charter rights against arbitrary detention by removing her from her own vehicle and placing her in the back of the police car to complete the approved screening device test. Defence further argued police violated her section 10(b) Charter rights by not correctly explaining her right to free legal advice. The judge excluded the breath samples from trial and MC was found NOT GUILTY.
R v AC
AC was charged with impaired driving and dangerous driving. She was arrested driving on the wrong side of Deerfoot trail. It was a very foggy night with limited visibility. During the roadside stop, she blew into an approved screening device which indicated she was intoxicated. At trial, Defence argued the officer did not have reasonable and probable grounds to issue a breath demand, violating her Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure. AC was found NOT GUILTY.
R v RD
RD was charged with criminal harassment against his ex-wife. He entered a guilty plea prior to trial and was granted a CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE after a contested sentencing hearing, which kept him free of a criminal record and allowed him to keep his job.
R v DF
DF was charged with assault with a weapon against his common-law partner. After no witnesses attended for the Crown prosecutor's case, the charges were WITHDRAWN on the day of trial.
R v CL
CL was charged with drug impaired driving. Defence argued the police violated his rights by arresting him without proof of impairment, and failed to conduct the Drug Recognition Expert demand and test as soon as practicable. The crown agreed and the charges were WITHDRAWN before trial.
R v RR
RR was charged with impaired driving. He was arrested driving through a red light and provide breath samples indicating he was intoxicated. After determining there was not defence available, RR plead guilty and at a contested sentencing hearing, successfully argued for a CURATIVE DISCHARGE. The sentence ensured he did not receive a criminal record.
R v SW
SW was drinking at a house party. While voluntarily consuming alcohol, he accidentally ingested an energy drink which had been spiked with GHB. The accused woke up in a sleeping bag in the driver seat of his car on the side of a busy road. The vehicle was running and SW was charged with impaired cared and control of a motor vehicle. Defence argued against the presumption of care and control. The judge agreed and SW was found NOT GUILTY.