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. After conducting an initial review of the file, Ms. Ferg obtained the disclosure from the original trial and conducted some additional inquiries. After lengthy discussions and negotiations with the Crown, the matter was sent back to the Court of Queen’s Bench for a new trial without the need for a full hearing before the Alberta Court of Appeal.
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. 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 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 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 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 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. McKay Criminal Defence 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, Counsel 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, Counsel 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 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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. McKay Criminal Defence successfully negotiated the client’s release with the Crown prosecutor on very minimal conditions.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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.