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.

R. vs. L.H. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken and given the support of the complainant, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings prior to the trial commencing. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.C. – Salmon Arm Provincial Court

Charges: Production of Marijuana; PPT Marijuana and MDMA.
Issue: Whether the search warrant was valid; whether our client had standind to challenge the search; whether Crown could prove our client had control over the 1500 plant grow operation and the MDMA.
Result: We were able to persuade Crown that their case was flawed. Complete stay of proceedings prior to the second day of the trial. No criminal record.

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

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Despite the seriousness of the asault, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown to stay the criminal charge upon our client entering into a Peace Bond. No criminal record.