Entries by Mike Mines

R. vs. K.C. – Delta Police Investigation

Charges: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with criminal charges for this alleged assault that occured in the context of a recreational sporting activity.

Result: Mr. Mines provided information to the police investigator on our clients’s behalf. Ultimately police decided to not recommend any criminal charges. No prosecution; no criminal record.

R. vs. K.J. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Uttering Threats.

Issue: Given the circumstances of the alleged offence and the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the proceedings and to resolve this matter with a 12 month Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. Z.A. – Burnaby RCMP Investigation

Charge: Assault (domestic).

Issue: Whether the allegations of this domestic allegation would meet the Crown counsel’s charge approval standard.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel that ultimately led to Crown declining to approve any criminal charge. Our client’s Undertaking was withdrawn, permitting him to resume contact with his spouse. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Assault with a weapon.

Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence and the rehabilitative steps that we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge in this case involving our client not obeying  a traffic flag person and assaulting her with her car.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown and the Court to grant our client  a conditional discharge. Our client was placed on probation with a term to perform community service work.

R. vs. B.L. – Victoria Provincial Court

Charges: Assault with a weapon.

Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence and the rehabilitative steps that we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge in this case involving an alcohol fuelled  fight among a group of young men.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown and the Court  to grant our client  a conditional discharge. Our client was placed on probation with a term to continue with counselling and to perform community service work.

R. vs. A.M. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charges: Pointing a firearm; assault with a firearm.

Issue: Given the context of the offence and our client’s remorse and rehabilitation, whether a jail sentence was appropriate.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to direct our client through a course of counselling and was able to persuade Crown counsel to make a joint recommendation for a community based sentence rather than the 2 year jail sentence that was Crown’s original sentencing position. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the court granted our client an 18 month conditional sentence, followed by 12 months probation. No jail.

R. vs. I.M. – ICBC Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charges: Fraud/misrepresentation.

Issue: Whether our client actually intended to make a misleading or fraudulent automobile accident claim.

Result: After consulting with us, our client provided an explanation to the investigator that resulted in ICBC deciding to not recommend any charges.  No prosecution. No criminal record.

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

Charges: Theft (from employeer) Over $5000.

Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.,br>

Result: Upon Mr. Mines providing information to Crown counsel that our client had fully settled the matter civilly and that there was a significant chance that a key Crown witness would be unavailable at trial, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.