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 einvestigator on our client’s behalf that ultimately led to police declining to recommend any criminal charges. No charge was approved. No criminal record.
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.
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.
Charges: Assault (x2).
Issue: Whether our client was involved in a consensual fight; used reasonable force in defending himself, or was guilty of two counts of assault.
Result: At the conclusion of a three day trial and hearing Mr. Gauthier’s submissions on our client’s behalf, the trial judge found our client not guilty on both counts. No jail. No criminal record.
Charges: Criminal Harassment.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide the police investigator with information about our client and the circumstances of the incidents that led to the discontinuation of the investigation. File closed. No criminal charges recommended.
Charge: Theft Under $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was contrary to the public interest for the court to grant our client a conditional discharge.
Result: Crown counsel’s position was that our client should be sentenced to jail but after considering our client’s positive pre-sentence report and Mr. Mines’ submissions on our client’s behalf, the court granted a conditional dischege. No criminal conviction.
Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was contrary to public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown to not proceed on a breach of bail allegation; to agree to not seek forfeiture of our client’s firearms, and to make a joint submission for a conditional discharge with probation. No criminal conviction.
Charge: Fear of safety allegation (Peace Bond Application).
Issue: Given the information we were able to provide to Crown counsel, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the Peace Bond application against our client.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings so that our client was no longer subject to any of the restrictive conditions he was bound by.
Charges: Assault (domestic). Reduced to Peace Bond.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we guided our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charges upon our client entering into a Peace Bond with a 12 month “no contact” order. No criminal record.
Charges: Assault (domestic). Reduced to Peace Bond.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we guided our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to stay the criminal charges upon our client entering into a Peace Bond with a 12 month “no contact” order. No criminal record.
Charges: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there remained a public interest in continuing with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information about our client to Crown counsel which ultimately led to Crown entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
Charges: Sexual harassment.
Issue: Whether our client’s behaviour amounted to “sexual harassment” as defined by the university’s conduct policy.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to prepare our client for the University’s hearing and, upon hearing all of the evidence, the University ruled that our client had not engaged in sexual harassment or any behaviour that contravened the institution’s policies.
