• 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. S.K. et al – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Assault x3.
Issue: Given various conflicting accounts of the incident, whether there was a substantial likelihood of criminal convictions.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay all charges upon our clients entering into Peace Bonds. No criminal records.

R. vs. G.G. – Burnaby RCMP Investigation

Charges: Sexual Interference; Sex Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: We were able to successfully steer our client through the police investigation. Ultimately Crown Counsel declined to approve any charge.

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

Charge: Assault (Domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Based on the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, we were able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings prior to the trial. No criminal record.

O.B. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles

Charge: Review of Driving Prohibition.
Issue: Whether it was reasonable for the Superintendent to issue our client a four month driving prohibition.
Result: We were able to persuade the Superintendent to reduce the prohibition from four months to one month.

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

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to the mandatory 12 month minimum driving prohibition.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a valid licence. Three month prohibition imposed.

R. vs. A.S. – Coquitlam RCMP Investigation

Charge: Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: We were able to successfully steer our client through the investigation. No charges recommended.

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

Charge: Arson
Issue: Whether our client had the necessary mental capacity to be convicted of a criminal offence.
Result: After hearing Mr. Johnson’s submissions, the trial judge found that our client was Not Criminally Responsible on account of a Mental Disorder. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Breaking and Entering; Participating in a Riot.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge.
Result: Notwithstanding our client’s participation in the infamous Stanley Cup Riot, after hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court granted a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

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

Charge: Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate in this $36,000 emloyee fraud case.
Result: Notwithstanding the breach of trust, the Court granted the “unusual result” of a suspended sentence with 12 months probation and a restitution order. No jail or house arrest.

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

Charge: Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings prior to the trial. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program prior to any charge being approved. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interst to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a complete stay of proceedings. No criminal record.