R v. A.D.
A.D. was charged with possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking and simple possession under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as well as possession of proceeds of crime under the Criminal Code of Canada after his car was searched during a traffic stop. The drugs alleged to be involved were Alprazolam, Marihuana and Cocaine. Mr. McKay was retained as counsel and the matter was set for trial. Prior to trial, Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg filed an extensive Charter notice alleging numerous violations of A.D.’s rights. The arguments included violations of A.D.’s right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, insufficient grounds for arrest, as well as a violation of A.D’s right to counsel. The Charter notice also alleged that the police officer who arrested A.D. was abusive in her conduct and violated his section 7 right to life, liberty and security of the person.
The matter proceeded to trial and the parties entered into a voir dire to hear evidence in relation to the Charter motion. After the testimony of the arresting officer, the parties had discussions and the matter was resolved. While the charges he was facing carried a potential for significant jail time, A.D. pled guilty to two counts of simple possession and received a fine.
R v C.D.
After an extensive police investigation involving numerous wiretaps, C.D. and a co-accused were charged with discharging a firearm with the intent to wound, maim or disfigure in relation to a drive-by shooting. The matter was set for a multi-week trial before a jury in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. Prior to trial, Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg had numerous meetings and discussions with Crown counsel. The matter was stayed the last business day before the trial was set to commence.
R v T.P.L.
T.P.L. was charged with second-degree murder after an incident that occurred in the early morning hours at a rural house party. Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg came onto the file after the preliminary inquiry and the matter was scheduled for trial.
In the months leading up to the trial, Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg sought further disclosure from the Crown and litigated two pre-trial motions. In terms of disclosure, the defence was able to obtain a number of important pieces of information in relation to the Crown’s star witness. This information was vital in destabilizing his credibility in cross-examination and casting doubt on what he said happened that night. The second pre-trial motion was an application to have a deceased eye witness’ prior statements introduced into evidence at trial. The version of events contained in this witness’ evidence was critical to the theory of the defence and was one of the only avenues available to corroborate what T.P.L. said happened. Both pre-trial motions were successful.
The trial was held before a judge and jury in superior court. It ran significantly longer than the parties anticipated and over the course of the trial, a number of unexpected legal issues arose. After the close of the Crown’s case, T.P.L. testified in her own defence. The case was left with the jury. After less than 24 hours of deliberation, the jury came back and T.P.L. was fully acquitted. She left court totally exonerated and was able to return home with her family.
R v C.D.
After an extensive police investigation involving numerous wiretaps, C.D. was charged with two counts of committing offences for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization over a period of almost a year and a half. The charges carried a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison each. The matter (which involved 4 other co-accused facing numerous counts of attempted murder) was set for a 6 week judge and jury trial in the Court of Queen’s Bench. Shortly before the proceedings were to commence, Mr. McKay and Ms. Ferg were able to resolve the matter. A.B. pled guilty to a single count of drug trafficking and was able to put his criminal charges behind him.
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.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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.