You are here: / / Property Offences Successes
  • False Creek at night

Our Successes

Property Offences

R. v. R.T. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

/in , /by

Charge: Insurance Fraud Under $5,000 investigation.

Issue: Given our client’s rehabilitation and repayment of disputed claims, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges forwarded. No criminal record.

R. v. L.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Mischief Over $5000.

Issue: Whether Crown could prove the value of damage alleged to have been caused by our client.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that they could not accurately prove the value of damage, and that our client had taken appropriate steps of self-rehabilitation. Crown elected to not approve any charges. No criminal record.

R. v. S.G. – Surrey Provincial Court

/in , , /by

Charges: Assault; Mischief.

Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps that we guided our client through and advocating on her behalf that there was a reasonable self defence issue, whether there was a substantial likelihood of securing a conviction.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel that there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction. Ultimately Crown entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal conviction. No criminal record.

R. v. A.S. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by
Charges: B & E, Fraud over $5000, Motor vehicle theft; Identity theft, Driving while prohibited (x2).
Issue: Given our client’s personal circumstances and rehabilitative efforts, what would be the appropriate sentence.
Result:  Mr. Johnston was able to persuade Crown to make a joint submission for time-served, followed by a period of probation. The Crown directed stays of proceedings on several charges.  After hearing Mr. Johnston’s submissions on our client’s behalf, the sentencing judge noted that he would have ordinarily imposed a lengthy jail sentence for an accused in our client’s position, but he accepted the joint submission. No further jail.

R. v. M.A. Insurance Fraud Investigation

/in , /by

Charge: Insurance Fraud Under $5000.

Issue: Given our client’s rehabilitation and repayment of the disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges were forwarded. No criminal record.

R. v. E.N. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Mischief Under $5000.

Issue: Given the information Mr. Gauthier provided to Crown counsel regarding our client’s personal circumstances and the circumstances of the alleged offence, whether it was appropriate to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown that there was no substantial likelihood of a conviction resulting ultimately in Crown declining to approve a charge. No criminal record.

R. v. A.M. – Possession of Stolen Property Investigation – Squamish RCMP

/in , /by

Charge: Possession of Stolen Property (motor vehicles).

Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence that our client was aware that the vehicles that he possessed had been obtained by the commission of crimes.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to steer our client through the police investigation. Ultimately, based on insufficient evidence, police declined to forward charges against our client. No prosecution. No criminal record.

R. v. A.B. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , , /by

Charge: Break and Enter.

Issue: Given our client’s mental health issues, whether a conditional discharge was an appropriate sentence for this drug store break in.

Result: Mr. Gauthier  provided Crown counsel with information about our client which persuaded Crown to make a joint submission for a conditional discharge. No jail. No criminal conviction.

R. v. M.G. – Nanaimo Provincial Court

/in , , /by

Charges: Sexual Assault; Theft of Motor Vehicle x2; Break & Enter.

Issue: Whether or not it was in the public interest to proceed with the trial considering the reluctance oft the Crown’s central witness and rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel that ultimately led to a stay of proceedings on all counts. No criminal record.

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

/in , /by

Charge: Mischief to Property.

Issue: After Mr. Gauthier was able to facilitate making restitution on our client’s behalf, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.

Results: Crown counsel accepted Mr. Gauthier’s representations and concluded the matter by entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

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

/in , , /by

Charges: Breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing an indictable offence, wearing a mask for the purpose of committing an indictable offence, breach of release order

Issue: Whether it would be consistent with the principles of sentencing for our client to serve his sentence in the community.

Result: Mr. Johnston provided Crown counsel with information which, along with our client’s rehabilitative progress and good compliance with strict bail conditions, persuaded the Crown to seek a jail sentence of under two years for his role in a violent “home invasion”. After hearing Mr. Johnston’s submissions, the court agreed it would not be inconsistent with the principles of sentencing for our client to serve his sentence in the community instead of in custody. This was a significant result for our client as home invasion convictions typically result in lengthy jail sentences served in federal prison. No further time in custody.

R. vs. D.H.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , , /by

Charges: Assault causing bodily harm; mischief to property under $5000.

Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction on the assault causing bodily harm charge.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on the assault causing bodily harm charge. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the court granted our client a conditional discharge and ordered restitution in relation to the smart phone that was damaged. No criminal conviction.

Title Here

Refine by Category