Latest from Our Blog
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 The matter was withdrawn within a month.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 T.C. entered a plea to a lesser charge, the original counts were withdrawn and T.C. received a suspended sentence with 12 months of probation.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.
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.