R v A.B.
A.B. was charged with aggravated assault in relation to a jail fight. The complainant had serious injuries and the matter was scheduled for a multi-day trial. While the initial resolution offer from the Crown involved a guilty plea and jail time, after pre-trial negotiations and a defence disclosure request for internal jail records, the matter was stayed.
R v M.A.
M.A. was pulled over by the police and charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over 08. The matter was withdrawn within a month.
R v C.L.
C.L was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08 after being found unconscious in a vehicle on the side of the road. The case involved a seizure of bodily evidence using a blood demand. After discussions with the Crown about the Charter violations that occurred when C.L’s blood was seized, the matter was stayed.
R v T.C.
T.C. was charged with robbery with a firearm, possession of a weapon for the purpose of committing an indictable offence and breaching a court order. While T.C. was facing several years in jail (particularly in relation to the robbery), Mr. McKay was able to reach a non-custodial resolution prior to trial. T.C. entered a plea to a lesser charge, the original counts were withdrawn and T.C. received a suspended sentence with 12 months of probation.
R v T.P.
T.P. was charged in a major fraud investigation in relation to allegedly false credit cards. After extensive negotiations and discussions about the Crown’s evidentiary burden, the matter was stayed the day prior to a week-long trial.
R v L.C.
L.C. was charged with one count of assault and one count of refusing to provide a breath sample. After negotiations with the Crown, the matter was resolved with a plea to obstruction and the other charges were stayed. L.C. received a conditional discharge which meant that after a successful period of probation, L.C. would not have a criminal record.
R v F.D.
F.D. was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine, trafficking in cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime after the police observed purported drug activity and executed a warrant on a hotel room. Mr. McKay had discussions with the Crown about the weaknesses in the police investigation and the problematic foundation for the Crown’s case generally and the matter was stayed prior to the preliminary inquiry.
R v H.S.
H.S. was charged with impaired driving and driving with an alcohol level over .08. After receiving initial disclosure, Mr. McKay pushed for video evidence both from the scene and the police station. Rather than disclose the requested material, the Crown stayed the proceedings.
R v I.D.
I.D. was charged in two serious prosecutions: one involving charges of robbery and assault causing bodily harm and one involving an alleged break and enter. Both cases involved identification issues. In the first case. Mr. McKay fought the charges at the preliminary inquiry and the accused was discharged (e.g. the charges were dismissed). In the second case, the Crown ran the preliminary inquiry and Mr. McKay cross-examined on the key issue of whether or not the investigator who was trying to identify the accused followed the proper procedures regarding photo line ups. The charges were stayed after the preliminary inquiry before trial dates could be set.
R v A.A.
A.A. was being investigated by the police in relation to an allegation of sexual assault by an acquaintance. After finding out the police wanted to talk to A.A., A.A. sought pre-charge legal advice in relation to A.A.’s rights and obligations under the law. A.A. also sought advice about what, if any, interaction A.A. should have with the police.
After extensive preparation and an independent, A.A. gave a police interview. A.A. went into the interview with the benefit of a full understanding of the legal jeopardy involved, the risks of giving an interview, an understanding of police interview techniques and a strategy to minimize any potential exposure. A.A. followed the interview plan and was able to explain to the police what happened without incriminating himself. A.A. was not charged and the police file was closed.
R v D.R.
D.R. was convicted of importing approximately 5 lbs of a Schedule 1 substance (Opium) into Canada contrary to section 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Upon being retained for the conduct of the appeal, Ms. Ferg was able to secure D.R.’s judicial release pending the hearing of the appeal.
R. v C.F.
C.F. was charged with 9 offences in relation to 5 different sets of charges all of which stemmed from an underlying addiction issues. The charges (some of which were from another jurisdiction) were brought together and dealt with at the same time to achieve the best result for C.F. Ultimately, after negotiation with the Crown, many of the charges were withdrawn of and C.F. did not have to spend any additional time in custody.
R v. G.R.
G.R. was charged with two counts of breaching an Emergency Protection Order and one count of failing to abide by a court order. The charges arose in the context of a domestic dispute and the second charge of breaching the Emergency Protection Order carried a minimum sentence of jail. Ms. Ferg liaised with G.R.’s family law counsel to form a comprehensive strategy to deal with G.R.’s legal issues in both areas of law. Ultimately, Ms. Ferg was able to have all of the criminal charges withdrawn.
R. v. T.R.
T.R. was charged with one count of uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm. The allegation was made in the context of a highly contentious custody battle and the very fact of a criminal charge was devastating to T.R. Although the matter was set for trial, Ms. Ferg was able to have the criminal charge withdrawn before the trial date and T.R. was able to move on without having to testify or go through stressful trial proceedings.
R v H.K.
H.K. was facing three separate prosecutions from another jurisdiction all of which stemmed from serious addiction and mental health issues. Since moving to Calgary, H.K. had rebuilt her life and made significant progress in treating and overcoming her issues. Ms. Ferg was able to have all of H.K.’s outstanding matters transferred into Calgary and resolved. While the Crown initially sought a period of custody and a high fine, Ms. Ferg dissuaded the Crown from seeking further custody and no fine was imposed.
R v S.A.
S.A. was charged with impairment by drug after being involved in a serious traffic accident. Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg filed a Charter notice which highlighted critical deficiencies in the Crown’s case. Specifically, Mr. McKay challenged the grounds for arrest and the manner in which the accused was compelled to submit to a drug evaluation. He also argued S.A.’s right to counsel had been breached. After some further discussion with the prosecutor, the case was withdrawn.
R v S.S.
S.S. was charged in two separate drug prosecutions. In the first, S.S. faced drug charges including possession of cocaine and MDMA for the purpose of trafficking. In the second, S.S. was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in relation to meth, cocaine and heroin as well as production of cocaine. He was also charged with possession of proceeds of crime (in relation to approximately $20,000 in cash) as well as possession of a restricted firearm (a fully automatic assault rifle) and ammunition.
After extensive pre-trial preparation, filing Charter motions and a number of negotiations with Crown counsel, Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg able to resolve all of S.S.’s matters with a plea to a single count of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and a single count of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking. All of the charges from the first prosecution were dropped and all of the remaining charges on the second prosecution were withdrawn. S.S. (who had a related record) received a sentence of 3.5 years in custody (which was approximately 6 years lower than the Crown’s initial offer).
R v B.B.
B.B. was charged in relation an alleged credit card “skimming” scheme. The police had physical surveillance evidence, electronic surveillance evidence, video evidence from the scene and obtained a number of warrants. After noticing irregularities in the disclosure, Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg sought additional disclosure from the Crown. When the disclosure was refused, they filed a court application to obtain it.
Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg also filed a Charter motion alleging the police failed to abide by the terms of one of the warrants they had and challenging the search of the residence allegedly associated with the accused. Before the applications could be heard, the Crown sought an adjournment in order to make further disclosure. The adjournment was granted and Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay. Before this application could be heard, the Crown entered a stay of proceedings.
R v M.M.
M.M. was charged with two counts of assault with a weapon and one count of assault causing bodily harm in relation to a stabbing in the context of a domestic relationship. M.M. suffered from mental health issues and the alleged offence occurred during a time of crisis. Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg became involved in the case shortly after the incident and were able to immediately liaise with M.M.’s family, community workers and medical professionals to get the support and treatment M.M. needed into place. The Court was presented with a comprehensive bail plain within a matter of days and M.M. was released after a contested bail hearing.
After M.M.’s release was secured, counsel continued to work with the doctors and other professionals involved to help M.M. navigate the court process. Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg had a number of discussions with the Crown regarding the appropriate resolution of the matter. While crimes of domestic crimes of violence are typically not eligible for diversion programs, after negotiations, the Crown ultimately consented to referring the case to the Mental Health Diversion program. The program was successfully completed and the charges were withdrawn.
R v A.R.
A.R. was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08 after being stopped at Calgary Police Checkstop. Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg filed a Charter notice alleging a breach of A.R.’s right to counsel and the matter was stayed by the Crown prior to trial.
R. v C.C.
The client was facing very serious allegations of trafficking in fentanyl. If convicted, he faced a lengthy term of imprisonment in Federal Penitentiary. Ryan Patmore brought a comprehensive application to the Court for exclusion of evidence based on the investigator’s inadequate grounds to search the vehicle, and the contents of mobile devices found inside, which were crucial for a conviction to sustain. Before trial, Mr. Patmore was able to identify such significant frailties in the Crown’s case, that it resolved to the lesser offence of simple possession and the client was able to avoid a years’ long term of incarceration.
R. v D.M.
The client was charged with trafficking in a significant amount of cocaine, and faced a lengthy term of jail if convicted. This was a complex case that involved long periods of surveillance leading to the issuance of a search warrant for the house which resulted in the discovery of the alleged drugs. In advance of trial, Mr. Patmore negotiated with the Crown, advising of all of the pre-trial applications challenging the warrant, and all other difficulties with the Crown case in terms of the method of search, and issues with respect to the client’s admissibility of other evidence based on several alleged breaches of her rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A trial date was set, however, the Crown eventually agreed to a resolution to simple possession for a nominal fine.
R. v J.K.
The client was on a CPS watch list and charged with driving while prohibited due to an impaired conviction within days of each other. The Crown mandate for such offences is to ask for jail for even one such allegation. Through effective negotiations with the Crown in the face of a seemingly strong case on both counts, Mr. Patmore successfully had the more serious allegation dropped, and the client was given a nominal fine instead of a term of imprisonment.
R. v A.M.
The client was charged with impaired driving offences and mischief. Although the case appeared to be relatively strong, in his pre-trial applications, Mr. Patmore was able to raise significant issues with respect to the timing of various demands, and other intricate evidentiary issues that ultimately led to the withdrawal of the charges before trial. The client was found NOT GUILTY.
R. v I.R.
The client was charged with very serious allegations in the Domestic context, that he assaulted his partner, brandished a weapon, and held her against her will. It is only in very rare circumstances that charges of this nature resolve by way of Peace Bond, whereby the client abides by a probationary term and the charges are withdrawn. Mr. Patmore was able to identify vital issues, and through pre-trial negotiations with the Crown he was able to resolve it in this fashion, resulting in ALL charges being withdrawn against his client.
R. v G.W.
The client was charged with committing a sexual assault on his daughter. This was a historical sexual assault allegation from years prior, with ties to other jurisdictions, and several other witnesses, giving rise to many complex legal issues. After a years’ long investigation, preliminary inquiry, and a trial that lasted several months with many pre-trial applications, the client was found NOT GUILTY, and avoided the starting point of 5 years jail if he had been convicted.
R. v M.V.
The client was from the United States, and charged with improperly maintaining a campsite, which had unintended consequences to wildlife, which resulted in the charge. Although seemingly non-serious, it may have had dire implications on the client, who made his livelihood travelling to Canada to work. A conviction would have impeded his ability to continue on with employment. Due to the nature of the offence it was the Crown’s mandate to proceed, and the trial commenced. However, after hearing the evidence of only one witness, Mr. Patmore was able to establish that the charge could not be made out, and the client was able to maintain his employment status and avoid a significant fine. The client was found NOT GUILTY.
R. v S.G.
The client was charged with possessing a firearm and threatening the complainant with it, carrying with a very serious allegation. In the days leading up to trial, Mr. Patmore was able to point to significant frailties in the Crown’s case that resulted in all weapons charges being withdrawn.
R v A.B.
After a major drug investigation in Saskatchewan, A.B. was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and marijuana, directing a criminal organization, possession of proceeds of crime and a number of weapons related offences. Mr. McKay was immediately retained for the purposes of securing his release and to defend A.B. on the merits.
The police investigation involved approximately 22 warrants to seize various items, 2 authorizations to intercept private communications (wiretap orders) and numerous police and civilian witnesses. Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg ran a preliminary inquiry during which a number of key police witnesses were cross-examined. At the conclusion of the preliminary inquiry, the Crown decided that they would not proceed on the conspiracy to traffic in marijuana charge and the various weapons charges. Shortly thereafter, the Crown also decided not to proceed on the criminal organization charges.
The first pre-trial motion was conducted over two weeks and involved challenging the legality of 7 searches. These searches were critical as they formed the foundation for the later wiretaps and numerous production orders. All of these searches were ruled illegal as they breached A.B.’s section 8 Charter rights. As a result of the successful motion, the Crown agreed to withdraw all of the remaining serious charges and the matter was resolved.
R v O.V.
O.V. was charged with various offences related to child pornography found on his computer. This case involved complex and nuanced technical and legal issues. The technical aspects included expert evidence on computer forensic analysis, peer-to-peer programs, computer memory and specialized software. Legally, the case involved numerous search and privacy issues.
Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg represented O.V. at preliminary inquiry and trial. At trial, O.V. was found not guilty of accessing and trafficking in child pornography but guilty of possession. This conviction was appealed and a 3-member panel of the Alberta Court of Appeal unanimously agreed that O.V. should not have been convicted. The conviction was quashed and the Court entered an acquittal. The Crown was not pleased with this outcome and has appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Canada.
R v A.L.
A.L. was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime in relation to a “random” traffic stop on a Saturday night. After securing his release, Mr. McKay immediately began negotiations with Crown counsel which resulted in a referral to alternative measure and the charges being withdrawn.
R v P.L.
P.L. was charged with possession of nearly 2 oz of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and an possession of a prohibited weapon after the police searched his vehicle. The matter was set for trial but Mr. McKay was able to persuade the Crown to withdraw the charges prior to the trial date.
R v D.K.
D.K. was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08 after a traffic stop. Mr. McKay filed a Charter motion alleging a breach of D.K.’s section 10(b) Charter right to counsel. The Crown agreed to withdraw all of the charges without having to proceed to trial.
R v T.R.
T.R. was charged with numerous offences in relation to a home invasion and robbery with a loaded handgun. After Mr. Patmore secured T.R.’s release on bail, an expert forensic psychiatrist was retained to evaluate T.R. and assist with determining the best course of action. After extensive negotiations, T.R. pled guilty to one count of being unlawfully in a dwelling house. Mr. McKay conducted sentencing and T.R. was sentenced to a conditional discharge with two years of probation.
R v R.L.
R.L. was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08 after a traffic stop. Mr. McKay filed a Charter motion alleging a breach of R.L.’s section 8 Charter right to counsel. The Crown agreed to withdraw all of the charges prior to trial.
R v E.A.
E.A. was charged with impaired driving, driving with a blood alcohol level over .08, hit and run after E.A. was located by HAWCS helicopter after an accident. Mr. McKay filed a Charter motion alleging a breach of E.A.’s section 10(b) Charter right to counsel. On the day of trial, the Crown agreed to resolve the matter by way of guilty plea to a traffic ticket.
R v T.B.
T.B. was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08 after a traffic stop. Mr. McKay filed a Charter motion alleging a breach of T.B.’s section 7 Charter right to full disclosure. The Crown agreed to withdraw all of the charges prior to trial.
R v. C.D.
Mr. McKay was counsel for C.D. who was charged with trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. This major out-of-province prosecution involved the use of wiretaps, informants, search warrants and surveillance evidence. On the first day of trial, Mr. McKay conducted extensive negotiations that resulted in numerous charges being withdrawn. This significantly reduced C.D.'s jeopardy and led to the successful resolution of the matter.
R. v. A.M.D.
The trial proceeded against A.M.D. on charges of domestic assault with a weapon, uttering threats and mischief. The Crown alleged that the client, while in a severe state of intoxication, had stabbed the complainant with a screwdriver and caused significant damage to the property. During cross-examination, Mr. Patmore was able to highlight significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s version of events and impeach him on his prior statements. A.M.D. was acquitted of all charges.
R. v. S.R.
Mr. Patmore ran a contested Bail Hearing in a case where the client was accused of robbing a financial institution, mischief over $5,000, numerous thefts and fraud. Despite the client having a number of outstanding warrants, Mr. Patmore was successful in obtaining his release.
R. v. F. M.
The client was charged with domestic assault and uttering threats. After lengthy discussions with the Crown Mr. Patmore was able to persuade them to drop the charges.
R. v. G.G.
G.G. was charged with impaired driving, driving with a blood alcohol level over .08 and failing to remain at the scene of an accident. Mr. Patmore filed a Charter motion for a Stay of Proceedings alleging that the Conservation officer who conducted the investigation did not have the statutory authority to detain his client. While the Crown had a strong case, after lengthy negotiations, they conceded the merits of the Charter application and the matter was resolved through a plea to a traffic ticket. The much more serious criminal code offences were withdrawn.
R. v. S.A.K.
The client was charged with assault with a weapon, dangerous driving and theft. After lengthy discussions with the Crown, and the fact that there were many issues regarding potential conviction, the Crown withdrew the more serious counts against the client. In a contested sentencing hearing, Mr. Patmore convinced the Judge to grant a Conditional Discharge, whereby, the client would not have a criminal record after a short period of Probation.
R v K.T.
K.T. was charged with aggravated assault in relation to a bar fight. Mr. McKay was able to speak with the Crown shortly after the charges were laid and negotiate the complete withdrawal of the charges.
R v Z.J.
Z.J. was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking after the police located approximately 20 lbs of marihuana during a traffic stop. Mr. McKay pressed the Crown for disclosure in relation to the drug dog that was used at the roadside and advised the Crown of the Charter motions he would be filing. The matter was resolved prior to trial for a plea to simple possession and a fine.
R v R.N.
R.N. was charged with two counts of sexual assault after an allegation from an ex-romantic partner. Mr. McKay took over the file from other counsel shortly after the preliminary inquiry. Mr. McKay had extensive discussions with the Crown during the pre-trial conference process and the Crown stayed the charges before trial dates were set.
R v S.D.
S.D. was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample after being found unconscious in the driver’s seat of a vehicle. Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg filed an extensive Charter notice alleging the police lacked the proper grounds for arrest and used excessive force in dealing with S.D. They also argued a breach of the S.D.’s right to counsel. The matter was stayed prior to trial.
R. v K.H.
The Client was charged with refusing to provide a lawful breath sample. She was presented with the Roadside Screening Device, and after three failed attempts at blowing, she was charged. Ryan Patmore cross-examined both officers to the point where the Court agreed that they were disingenuous in their attempts to provide the client with the necessary time to provide a sample. Mr. Patmore called into question their reliability and credibility as to what actually transpired, and raised doubt that the device used was properly functional at the time. The client was found NOT GUILTY.
R. v K.B.
The client was facing sure jail after deciding to plead guilty to his 7th impaired driving offence. Ryan Patmore produced all necessary materials to the Court and prepared his client to give evidence regarding his past history with addictions issues. Once the client testified, Mr. Patmore successfully argued for a probationary term against the very real likelihood of a lengthy jail sentence.
R. v B.K.
This was a unique case that did not present with many defences at first blush. The youthful client was accused of being in care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol. Ryan Patmore brought an application to exclude evidence based on an alleged breach of the young person’s right to a lawyer. This was a unique case where Mr. Patmore advanced the novel argument that confusion was raised based on the officer reading the accused his rights under the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the Criminal Code of Canada. Further, once at the detachment, he successfully argued that the officer should have done more in the circumstances to confirm he spoke with a lawyer. The evidence was excluded and the accused was found not guilty. There was no reason for Mr. Patmore to proceed to showing that his client was not actually in care and control of the motor vehicle at the time.
R. v. B.P
B.P. was charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation. The prosecuting authorities alleged that B.P.’s girlfriend was not old enough to consent to a sexual relationship. The client decided to contact his former lawyer, Ian McKay, in order to assist with these charges. On the day set for preliminary inquiry, Mr. McKay convinced the prosecuting authorities that the investigation was seriously flawed and that the prosecution was doomed to fail. Much to the chagrin of the local police force, all charges against B.P. were dropped.
R. v. D.G.
D.G. was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking after the police found almost 2 oz of crack cocaine in his rental vehicle. D.G. was stopped in a “routine” traffic stop which led to the eventually seizure. Mr. McKay launched a constitutional challenge to the traffic stop and the search of his car based upon a breach of D.G.’s right to be free against unreasonable search and seizure. The judge agreed with Mr. McKay’s argument that the police had no grounds to search the vehicle and excluded all drug evidence found in the vehicle. D.G. was found not guilty of all drug charges.
R. v. B.T.
B.T. was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime in relation to a “random” traffic stop on a Saturday night. After securing his release, Mr. McKay immediately began negotiations with Crown counsel which resulted in a referral to alternative measure and the charges being withdrawn.
R. v. B.S.
B.S. was recently charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in GHB. The police stopped B.S. in what has become known as a roadside “pipeline” stop. The car was searched and a large quantity of GBH was found. B.S. retained Mr. McKay and despite the fact that this was one of the largest seizures of GHB in Alberta history, Mr. McKay was able to secure B.S.’s release from custody within one day of being retained.
R. v. P.G.
P.G., who resided in another jurisdiction, was subject to a Canada Wide Warrant for his arrest for a very serious crime. P.G. retained Mr. McKay in order to negotiate the terms of his release if he were to return to Alberta and to defend him against the allegations. Not only did Mr. McKay immediately secure his release but Mr. McKay had all charges dropped against P.G. within 3 weeks.
R. v. D.R.
D.R. entered a guilty plea to assault with a weapon and causing a disturbance. After a lengthy and contested sentencing hearing, Mr. Patmore successfully argued for a Conditional Discharge. This meant that after a short period of probation, D.R. would not have a criminal record.
R. v. A.B.C.
The trial proceeded in a case alleging that the client refused to provide a breath sample into an Approved Roadside Screening Device (“ASD”). After argument, the Court agreed with the Ryan Patmore’s submissions that the officer had no legal justification for the delay he occasioned in advising his client that she was to provide a breath sample into the ASD forthwith (as soon as possible). The client was acquitted.
R. v. C.D.E
D.V.P. was charged with numerous offences (including domestic assault, unlawful confinement, various weapons offences, impaired driving, and several breaches of court orders). Mr. Patmore ran a contested bail hearing (in a reverse onus situation) and successfully obtained D.V.P.’s release. Mr. Patmore was then successful in resolving the matter by negotiating to have the most serious charges withdrawn.
R. v. G.W.
The client stood charged with over ten criminal charges including sexual exploitation and sexual assault on a minor. Ryan Patmore was bale to secure the client’s release in a timely fashion and with minimal conditions without having to run a bail hearing.
R. v. R. F.
The client was charged with possession for the purposes of trafficking, after the RCMP executed a search warrant on a dwelling house that revealed large quantities of cocaine. The client had numerous outstanding warrants for failing to appear to court and breaches. Mr. Patmore successfully negotiated his client’s release with the Crown prosecutor on very minimal conditions.
R. v. B.N.
The client pled guilty to charges of domestic assault and mischief. In sentencing, Mr. Patmore successfully argued for a Conditional Discharge, whereby, after a short period of probation, his client would not have a criminal record.
R. v. C.S.
C.S. was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. Mr. Patmore filed a pre-trial motion alleging a violation of C.S.’s right to speak with his lawyer of choice. Despite the arresting police officer’s claim that all opportunities for the client to contact a lawyer were exhausted, Mr. Patmore successfully argued that the officer did not adhere to the strict requirements of the Charter. C.S. was acquitted.
R. v. D.B.
The client was set to proceed to trial on a fourth allegation of driving while disqualified under the Criminal Code. If convicted, D.B. was faing months of incarceration. After lengthy negotiations with the Crown prosecutor regarding technical evidentiary issues, Mr. Patmore was able to persuade the Crown to resolve the matter with a plea to a traffic ticket. Despite the Crown’s relatively strong case, the criminal charges were withdrawn and D.B. was able to avoid another conviction on her criminal record and certain jail.
R. v. P.P.
P.P’s case was set to proceed to trial on charges of impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. Mr. Patmore filed a pre-trail Charter motion alleging that the arresting officer did not have the proper grounds for P.P.’s arrest. Mr. Patmore also argued that P.P’s right to contact counsel had been breached. The Crown conceded all arguments and the charges were withdrawn before trial.
R. v. A.M.
Mr. McKay’s client was charged with possession of four ounces of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking as well as possession of proceeds of crime. Because of the new “Tough on Crime” agenda, A.M. was facing a mandatory minimum of 3 years in jail if he was convicted. As a result of a hard fought pre-trial application, all charges were dismissed. A.M. walked out the front door a free man.
R. v. R.W.
R.W. was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of proceeds of crime after the Calgary Police Service broke down his door to execute a search warrant. On the morning of trial, Mr. McKay was able to expose a fatal weakness in the case and all charges were dismissed.
R. v. A.C.
A.C. was charged with common assault in relation to a young child. During the initial stages of the prosecution, the stakes were raised when the charges were increased to sexual assault. Mr. McKay was asked to take the case over and was able to expose the potential for collusion between the witnesses on the morning of the preliminary inquiry. All charges were immediately dropped and A.C. was spared the stress and expense of defending the charges at trial.
R. v. C.P
C.P was charged in another province with possession of almost 14 ounces of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg were retained at the end of the preliminary inquiry and brought a pre-trial motion for the exclusion of evidence under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The application involved cell phones, wiretap law and cutting edge issues in electronic search and seizure litigation. On the eve of trial, C.P was offered a conditional sentence order (i.e. a period of house arrest) which is almost unheard of for a drug seizure of this magnitude. Needless to say, C.P. was more than happy to accept this resolution.
R. v. O.K.
O.K. was charged with impaired driving, driving with a blood alcohol level over .08, hit & run, dangerous driving and assault with a weapon. While the Crown’s case looked bullet proof on paper, it began to unravel in the courtroom during Mr. McKay’s cross-examination of the Crown’s key witnesses. Midway through the trial, the Crown withdrew all charges in exchange for a guilty plea to two traffic tickets.
R. v. P.H.
P.H. was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. Mr. Patmore filed a pre-trial Charter motion alleging a violation of P.H.’s right to contact counsel. The motion was based on video evidence that clearly depicted the vital points of the interaction between P.H. and the arresting officer. The Crown insisted on proceeding to trial. Mr. Patmore argued (based on the Crown’s own evidence) that there was a clear Charter breach and the evidence should be excluded. The Court agreed and the charges were dismissed.
R. v. D.T.
D.T. was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. Mr. Patmore’s cross-examination of the RCMP officers made it clear that their “observations” of D.T.’s alleged impairment we exaggerated and could not even meet the low standard to justify a roadside screening.D.T. was acquitted.
R. v. C.D.
C.D. was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. After trial, the judge asked the parties to provide written submissions on two Charter issues. Once Mr. Patmore filed his written argument, the Crown conceded the case and had the matter brought into Court for the charges to be withdrawn.
R. v. J.B.
J.B. was charged with disqualified driving under the Criminal Code. After the trial, the Court asked for written submissions from both counsel on the issue of whether J.B.’s right to counsel had been breached. After receiving Mr. Patmore’s written brief, the Crown conceded the case and the charge was withdrawn.
R. v. M.B.
Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg represented M.B. who was charged with the historical sexual assault of 2 child complainants. The case involved a number of special evidentiary issues (due to the dated nature of the allegations and the age of the complainants at the relevant times). M.B. mounted a rigorous defence that involved calling evidence and making extensive oral and written legal submission. After an emotionally charged trial, M.B. was found not guilty of everything.
R. v. D.G.
Mr. McKay’s client was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking (PPT) in marijuana and possession of proceeds of crime. At trial, Mr. McKay launched a vigorous on the police investigation. He challenged the search of D.G.’s vehicle and contested the validity of the expert evidence called by the Crown. Ultimately, D.G. was found not guilty of PPT and not guilty of the proceeds of crime charge.
R. v. C.O.
C.O. was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking (PPT) of 35,000 tabs of ecstasy, possession of a loaded handgun and possession of the proceeds of crime (cash). Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg brought a pre-trial application for a judicial stay of proceedings pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The application was based upon a violation of C.O.’s constitutional right to have a trial within a reasonable time. The application was granted and C.O. walked away a free man with no criminal record.
R. v. K.W.
K.W. was charged with second-degree murder in the interior of British Columbia. This high profile, 6-week jury trial involved complex forensic and blood pattern analysis evidence. Mr. McKay and his team launched a vigorous defence on behalf of the client based upon the argument of self-defence.
R. v. L.G.
L.G. was charged with robbery, criminal harassment and assault causing bodily harm in relation to an incident that allegedly occurred during a contentious and volatile marital breakup. These serious charges left the client at risk for a significant period of jail time. After a hotly contested trial, L.G. was found not guilty of everything except for 1 count of common assault. L.G. was sentenced to a conditional discharge (which means he will not have a criminal record after 1 year).
R. v. C.M
A multi-day trial was set for the client in a high profile case alleging Hit and Run Causing Bodily harm. The Crown’s case was circumstantial and contingent on the admissibility of C.M.’s alleged confession. Mr. Patmore filed a pretrial motion arguing that the statement was not given voluntarily and was obtained in violation of his right to contact a lawyer under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When the Crown received notice of Mr. Patmore’s application to exclude the evidence, it acknowledged the Charter violations and the prosecution was stayed.
R. v. S.B.
The client was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. S.B. was detained for several hours after his arrest. At trial, Mr. Patmore was able to demonstrate that the police had no common law or statutory authority to detain S.B in the manner that they did. The Court concluded that the S.B.’s Charter protected right to be secure against arbitrary detention was violated and granted Mr. Patmore’s application for a Judicial Stay of Proceedings.
R. v. J.R.
The client was charged with impaired driving, dangerous driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. While the police maintained that J.R. had waived his constitutional right to contact a lawyer, Mr. Patmore was able to persuade the Court that in the unique circumstances of the case, the police were obliged to advise J.R. of his right to counsel upon arrival at the detachment before they asked him to provide breath samples. The Court found that there was a violation of J.R.’s right to counsel and the evidence of his blood alcohol concentration was excluded as a result. J.R. was acquitted of all charges.
R. v. J.E.
Mr. McKay’s client was charged with significant drug charges in British Columbia. During a spirited cross-examination of the investigating officer, it became clear that despite having arrested and charged J.E., the officer could not verify the type of drug seized nor the weight of the substance involved. J.E. was found not guilty of all charges.
R. v. H.L.
Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg were retained to represent H.L. who was charged with numerous counts of fraud, extortion and criminal harassment. This 4-week trial involved an Alberta precedent setting decision as it relates to seizure of banking records from financial institutions. In addition, it involved issues surrounding the complex interplay between historical financial records and the professional affiliations of the client.
R. v. S.D.
S.D. was charged with stabbing a bouncer at a Calgary bar. On the eve of trial, Mr. McKay spoke with the Crown and alerted them to the serious weaknesses in their case. All charges were withdrawn.
R. v. T.W.
The client was charged with unlawful confinement and assault after an incident that allegedly occurred in a hotel room in northern Alberta. On the eve of trial, the Crown withdrew all charges.
R. v. C.M.
Mr. McKay’s client was charged with unlawful confinement, assault with a weapon and uttering death threats. At the trial, the complainant was the first witness for the Crown. After an intense cross-examination, the Crown recognized the serious problems with the complainant’s credibility and invited the Court to dismiss the charges. C.M. was found not guilty of all charges.
R. v. K.H.
The accused was stopped for speeding and then investigated for impaired driving. The police demanded a sample of K.H.’s breath and K.H. was charged with impaired driving and driving while with a blood alcohol level over .08 as a result. At trial, Mr. McKay applied for the exclusion of evidence under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms based on the police’s failure to collect the breath samples in a timely fashion. Mr. McKay’s application was granted and K.H. was found not guilty of all charges.
R. v. E.K.
E.K. was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. At the end of the trial, Mr. McKay advanced several arguments including that the Crown had failed to prove the identification of the accused. After carefully reviewing the evidence and legal issues, the Court agreed identification had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and E.K. was found not guilty of all charges.
R. v. A.B.
A.B. was charged with fraud and uttering forged documents in relation to a complex credit card scheme. After extensive negotiations with the prosecuting authorities, Mr. McKay managed to convince the Crown to kill the entire prosecution. Mr. McKay’s client walked away a free man.
R. v. S.K.
The client was charged with impaired driving and driving while over the legal limit. After Mr. McKay raised a novel argument regarding a breach of the client’s constitutional right to counsel, the client was found not guilty of all charges.
R. v. M.B.
M.B. was charged with impaired driving and driving while over the legal limit. The client was kept in jail for a number of hours after his arrest without justification. Mr. McKay sought a stay of proceedings pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms based on a violation of M.B.’s right not to be arbitrarily detained. The stay was granted and M.B. was able to avoid a criminal record.
R. v. R.B.
This was a historical sexual assault case where the client was charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a minor. The charges were laid years after the alleged events. During the preliminary inquiry, Mr. McKay was able to expose a number of problems with the complainant’s testimony and the charges were withdrawn.
R. v. T.S.
T.S. was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm. These were serious offences that could have led to a significant period of incarceration. Mr. McKay conducted a preliminary inquiry in the case and his extensive cross-examination revealed a number of weaknesses in the Crown’s case. As a result, T.S. was offered a plea bargain on the eve of trial. He pled guilty to one count of impaired driving and his sentence involved a fine and probation rather than a penitentiary jail term.
R. v. A.B.
A.B. was arrested and charged with numerous offences involving the possession and manufacturing of fake credit cards. Such charges can attract high fines and long periods in jail. On the first day of trial, Mr. McKay’s aggressive cross-examination of the primary investigator led the Crown to make a resolution offer. All of the charges against A.B. were withdrawn and in exchange he pled guilty to being in possession of a fake driver’s license.
R. v. P.S.
Mr. McKay’s client was charged with first-degree murder in the brutal shooting of a well-known drug dealer in Red Deer. In Canada, first-degree murder carries an automatic life sentence. After exhaustive preparation, Mr. McKay ran a preliminary inquiry and was able to expose many weaknesses in the police investigation. As a result, P.S. was cleared of ALL charges without having to go to trial. P.S. left the proceedings a free man no longer worried about spending the rest of his life in custody.
R. v. W.C.
The client was charged with a marijuana grow operation involving numerous marihuana plants. Mr. McKay conducted a preliminary inquiry and was able to expose a number of significant weaknesses in Crown’s case. After the preliminary inquiry, the matter was set for trial. Based on what had happened at the preliminary inquiry and the strength of the remaining evidence against W.C., the Crown prosecutor chose to stay the charges approximately 1 week before the trial was scheduled to commence.
R. v. J.N.
J.N. was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm after a four-car accident in southwest Calgary. During the preliminary inquiry, Mr. McKay cross-examined the officers involved and established that they failed to respect his client’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Additionally, Mr. McKay’s cross-examination showed that the Crown would have significant problems proving what, exactly, caused the accident. After the preliminary inquiry the matter was set for trial. On the eve of trial, J.N. was offered a resolution and pled guilty to one count of impaired driving. The rest of the charges were withdrawn. Ultimately, J.N. walked away with a driving suspension and a fine rather than a term in the penitentiary.
R. v. J.S.
The client was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol limit over .08 after he drove his vehicle into 2 parked cars. After numerous days of trial and a number of successful applications for the exclusion of evidence, the client was found not guilty of all charges.
R. v. D.O.
D.O. was charged with drunk driving. During the investigation, the police used a machine called an Intoxilyzer 5000C to collect D.O.’s breath samples. When the breath technician who operated the machine was called as a witness, Mr. McKay was able to use his expertise in the area to cross-examine him on the technical aspects of the machine. This led to a nuanced argument during which Mr. McKay was able to show that the breath test results were unreliable. D.O. was found not guilty.
R. v. S.H.
S.H. was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08. At trial, Mr. McKay argued that the police had violated his client’s Constitutional right to consult with counsel of choice. The argument was successful and the incriminating evidence was excluded. S.H. was found not guilty of all charges.
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and all litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts and circumstances of each individual case.