Crimes of Violence & Domestic Assault
R v Y.Z.
Y.Z. and a co-accused were charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life after an elderly person under their care sustained injuries during an accident and subsequently died. Ms. Ferg was retained and after securing initial disclosure (which included extensive medical documentation) the matter was set for trial. After numerous discussions with the Crown, Ms. Ferg successfully had the charge against her client completely withdrawn. Y.Z. avoided a criminal record and was able to continue working in her field.
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 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 T.C. entered a plea to a lesser charge, the original counts were withdrawn and T.C. received a suspended sentence with 12 months of probation.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 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 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 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 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 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. Counsel 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 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, McKay Criminal Defence was able to point to significant frailties in the Crown’s case that resulted in all weapons charges being withdrawn.
R v G.G.
G.G. was charged with assault after a “Road Rage” incident escalated and the police were called. G.G. retained Ms. Ferg shortly after being charged. Ms. Ferg was able to conduct negotiations with Crown counsel and the matter was withdrawn prior to trial dates being set.
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, Counsel 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.
McKay Criminal Defence 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, Counsel 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 McKay Criminal Defence was able to persuade them to drop the charges.
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, McKay Criminal Defence 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. 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). McKay Criminal Defence ran a contested bail hearing (in a reverse onus situation) and successfully obtained D.V.P.’s release. Counsel was then successful in resolving the matter by negotiating to have the most serious charges withdrawn.
R. v. B.N.
The client pled guilty to charges of domestic assault and mischief. In sentencing, McKay Criminal Defence successfully argued for a Conditional Discharge, whereby, after a short period of probation, the client would not have a criminal record.
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. 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. 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.
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.