• We have a proven record of success.

    Defending criminal and driving charges since 1993.

    False Creek at night

Our Successes

The vast majority of our clients’ cases are resolved favourably.

R. vs. D.C. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Assault (x2).

Issue: In the circumstances of these historic charges and our client’s rehabilitation, whether a community based sentence was appropriate.

Result: Notwithstanding that Crown counsel sought a 20 month jail sentence, the trial judge agreed with Mr. Mines’ submission that, in the circumstances of our client’s genuine remorse and rehabilitation, it was appropriate to  grant a conditional sentence of 21 months. No jail.

R. vs. G.S. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).

Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to continue with the prosecution.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings, brining the matter to an end. No criminal record.

B.G. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Theft/Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).

Issue: Given the self rehabilitation and civil settlement made by our client, whether a non-custodial sentence was appropriate in this $60,000 theft from employer case.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the Court that the appropriate sentence was an 18 month community-based sentence with 6 months of house arrest. No jail.

R. vs. J.C. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).

Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest for Crown counsel to continue the prosecution.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide new information to Crown and was ultimately able to persuade Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. S.L. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge: Fraud Over $5000.

Issue: Given our client’s settlement of the fraud claim by paying funds back on a “without prejudice” basis, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the investigator to not forward any report for charge assessment. No charges were approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.A. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.

Issue: Whether the complainant and the Crown witnesses gave reliable and crdible evidence at trial.

Result: After vigorous cross examination, the trail judge accepted Mr. Gauthier’s submissions that Crown counsel had failed to prove its case. Not guilty verdict. No criminal record.

R. vs. X.L. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).

Issue: Whether the information police provided to Crown counsel would cause Crown to conclude there was a substantial likelihood of obtaining a conviction.

Result: Mr. Mines provided information to Crown on our client’s behalf and was able to persuade Crown that our client was in fact the victim of assault and was acting in self defence. No charges were approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.S. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Criminal Harassment (domestic).

Issue: Whether our client’s mental state was such that Crown counsel could prove that she had the necessary level of intent to be convicted of a criminal offence.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide our client’s medical documentation to Crown which resulted in Crown deciding not to proceed with the prosecution. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.X. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Driving while prohibited (MVA).

Issue: Whether the delay in approving the charge was relevant to our client’s right to a speedy trial.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a valid driver’s licence. Rather than a 12 month driving prohibition and 10 penalty points, our client was sentenced to a 3 month driving prohibition and received only 3 penalty points.

R. vs. Q.B. – North Vancouver RCMP investigation

Charges: Sexual assault.

Issue: Whether or not the acts complained of were consensual or not, and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Mines provided further information to th investigator on our client’s behalf that ultimately led to police declining to recommend any criminal charges. No charge was approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.G. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assult (domestic).

Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest for Crown counsel to continue the criminal prosecution.

Result: Based on the information Mr. Mines provide regarding our client, Crown directed a stay of proceedings bringing the matter to an end. No criminal record.

R. vs. E.E. and B.L. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charges: Fraud; misrepresentation.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal investigation and prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to negotiate a civil settlement on our clients’ behalf resulting in an end to the matter. No police investigation. No criminal record.