Charges: Uttering Threats (domestic).
Issue: Given the circumstances of the incident and our client’s background, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Considering our client’s unblemished history awaiting trial, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to withdraw the charge. No criminal record.
Charges: Sexual Assault; Breach of undertaking.
Issue: Whether the complaint met the Crown’s charge approval standard. Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the breach charge.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown on our client’s behalf which, ultimately, resulted in Crown not approving any charge on the sexual assault complaint and agreeing to a 12 month peace bond on the breach charge. No jail. No criminal record.
Charge: Possession of a prohibited weapon for a dangerous purpose.
Issue: Given our client’s background and the context of the offence, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel that culminated in Crown’s agreement to refer our client into the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.
Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide relevant information to Crown on our client’s behalf which resulted in Crown entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.
Charge: Our client was investigated for theft of pharmaceuticals while on a job placement assignment.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant the university to expel our client from furthe studies at UBC.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to guide our client through the investigation process and was able to convince the faculty to allow our client to continue studying. Rather than proceeding to a discipline hearing, the matter was concluded.
Charges: Attempted Murder; Assault with a weapon; Assault causing bodily harm.
Issue: Whether our client had the requisite mental intent to be convicted of attempted murder.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to present Crown counsel with relevant medical and background information that ultimately persuaded Crown to resolve this matter on the less offence of assault causing bodily harm. After hearing Mr. Gauthier’s submissions, the trail judge sentenced our client to 90 days jail and 3 years probation rather than the lengthy jail sentence Crown had originally sought.
Charges: Break and Enter; Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel that the Crown lacked the necessary evidence to gain a conviction. On the eve of the trial, Crown entered a stay of proceedings, bringing the matter to an end. No criminal record.
Charges: Sexual Assault (x4).
Issue: Given our client’s extensive progress with rehabilitation and the collateral consequences of a conviction, whether it was appropriate for our client to be granted a conditional discharge.
Result: After hearing Mr. Mines’ extensive submissions on our client’s behalf, the trial judge granted our client a conditional discharge rather than imposing a conviction which would have resulted in a deportation order.
Ian Gauthier helped me on my case recently, he is very knowledgeable and patient, provided me with wise advices with his professional expertise.He always answers me quickly and professionally with right guidance to move in positive direction. Even connected me to psychologist Dr Browning for counselling which really helped me solving my case & getting […]
Charges: Assault with a Weapon; Obstruct Police Officer.
Issue: Despite the very serious nature of the offence (threatening to cause serious harm at knifepoint) whether a jail sentence was the appropriate sentence.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to direct our client through an intensive course of rehabilitation, and was ultimately able to persuade Crown counsel and the Court to grant our client a conditional sentece to be served in the community in a residential tratment facility. No jail.
Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the extensive rehabilitation effort of our client, whether it was appropriate for the court to grant our client a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the Court that provocation was a significant factor and that, despite kicking the complainant, the appropriate sentence was a discharge on condition of “no contact” for 12 months. No criminal conviction.
