You are here: / All Successes

  • 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. v. S.C. – Vancouver Police Investigation

/in , /by

Charge: Assault.

Issue: Whether there was credible evidence that would meet the charge approval standard.

Result: Mr. Gauthier provided information to the investigating officer that led the investigator to conclude that our client was not chargeable with a criminal offence. No charge approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.K. – Richmond Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Assault; Forcible Confinement (domestic).

Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our through, whether it was in the public interest for our client to be sentenced to a criminal record.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown to proceed only on the assault charge and, after hearing Mr. Gauthier’s submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R.M. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

/in , /by

Charge: 90 Day Immediate Roadside prohibition.

Issue: Whether the police report established, on balance, that our client had refused to provide a breath sample during a roadside impaired driving investigation.

Result: The adjudicator agreed with Mr. Mines’ submissions that our client’s evidence was more reliable than the evidence set out in the Police Report to the Superintendent. The 90 day driving prohibition was overturned and our client was ruled eligible to resume driving.

R. vs. E.W. – Fort Nelson Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Assault (domestic).

Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a criminal conviction.

Result: Upon reviewing the allegations, Mr. Mines made representations to Crown counsel resulting in Crown agreeing that there was no reasonable prospect of convicting our client. No charges were approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. H.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Assault Peace Officer; Mischief Under $5000.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to  persuade Crown counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program and to enter a stay of proceedings on both charges upon our client completing the program. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.S. – Richmond Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Breach of Probation (from weapons charge).

Issue: Whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the prosecution of our client who had failed to complete a course of court ordered counselling.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to steer our client through an equivalent course of counselling. Upon completion, Crown counsel stayed the proceedings. No criminal record.

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

/in , /by

Charge: Mischief Causing Danger to Life.

Issue: Given the medical evidence Mr. Gauthier provided to Crown counsel, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.A. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Breaking & Entering; Unlawful Confinement; Assault.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for the prosecution to continue against our client, a U.S. citizen who was in Canada on a visitor’s visa.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on all charges upon our client agreeing to a Deportation Order. No criminal record.

R. vs. P.N. – Surrey Provincial Court

/in , , /by

Charge: Dangerous Driving Causing Death.

Issue: Whether Crown could prove that our client had the necessary intent to prove that she was guilty of the criminal charge.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed under the Motor Vehicle Act rather than the Criminal Code. After hearing Mr. Mines’  submissions, the Court sentenced our client to 60 days to be served on weekends. The Crown had originally sought a sentence in the range of 2 years.

R. vs. L.A. – New Westminster Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Breach of Probation (from domestic assault charge).

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to prosecute our client for failing to report and complete counselling.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to guide our client back onto an alternative course of rehabilitation and persuaded Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. M.K. – Richmond Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Uttering Threats; Extortion.

Issue: Given the age of the charges and the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether a jail sentence was appropriate.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to seek a non custodial sentence. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court granted our client a suspended sentence and placed him on probation for 16 months. No jail.

R. vs. K.A. – Western Communities Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Assault (domestic).

Issues: Given the information we provided to Crown counsel regarding the complainant’s past unlawful behaviour toward our client, whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.

Result: As a result of the information we provided, Crown counsel withdrew the charge. No further bail restrictions. No criminal record.

Title Here

Refine by Category