Defending your rights and freedoms.
Dedicated. Experienced. Proven results.
Contact us now.
If you’ve been charged or investigated, don’t face the problem alone. Mines and Company will strongly advocate for a successful resolution prior to your trial, or where necessary, forcefully argue for your charges to be dismissed at trial. The vast majority of our client’s cases are resolved favourably.
Send an inquiry.
The use of the internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm is not secure and does not establish a lawyer-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.
Recent Successes
R. vs. C.Y. – Richmond Provincial Court
Charges: Assault with a weapon ( reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given 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. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client to resolve this matter with a s. 810 Recognizance (Peace Bond) for a period of 12 months. Stay of proceedings on the criminal charge. No criminal record.
Issue: Given 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. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client to resolve this matter with a s. 810 Recognizance (Peace Bond) for a period of 12 months. Stay of proceedings on the criminal charge. No criminal record.
R. vs. F.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: Theft and Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether the pre-charge delay of 3.5 years would reduce the sentence in this $215,000 employee fraud case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the trial judge and Crown counsel that there was merit to our application for a judicial stay of proceedings based on our client's inability to properly defend the charges due to a delay of about 4 years in getting the charges approved. Notwithstanding this breach of trust, Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a plea arrangement in which our client received a 2 year conditional sentence order with a 10 pm curfew for 12 months. No monies were ordered to be repaid. No jail.
Issue: Whether the pre-charge delay of 3.5 years would reduce the sentence in this $215,000 employee fraud case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the trial judge and Crown counsel that there was merit to our application for a judicial stay of proceedings based on our client's inability to properly defend the charges due to a delay of about 4 years in getting the charges approved. Notwithstanding this breach of trust, Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a plea arrangement in which our client received a 2 year conditional sentence order with a 10 pm curfew for 12 months. No monies were ordered to be repaid. No jail.
R. vs. M.P. – Abbotsford Police Investigation
Charges: Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosucution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown and to ultimately persuade Crown counsel to not approve any charge in this case. No charge approves. No criminal record.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosucution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown and to ultimately persuade Crown counsel to not approve any charge in this case. No charge approves. No criminal record.
R. vs. J.H. – Abbotsford Provincial Court
Charge: Failing to stop at an accident resulting in bodily harm.
Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence, our client's background and his extreme remorse, whether a jail sentence was warranted.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was ble to direct our client through a course of psychological counselling and was able to persuade Crown counsel to agree to a non-custodial sentence. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a 12 month conditional sentence. No jail.
Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence, our client's background and his extreme remorse, whether a jail sentence was warranted.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was ble to direct our client through a course of psychological counselling and was able to persuade Crown counsel to agree to a non-custodial sentence. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a 12 month conditional sentence. No jail.
R. vs. Q.G. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether Crown counsel had sufficient evidence to meet the charge approval standard.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that important evidence would be missing from a cenrtal witness and to not approve any charges. No criminal record.
Issue: Whether Crown counsel had sufficient evidence to meet the charge approval standard.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that important evidence would be missing from a cenrtal witness and to not approve any charges. No criminal record.
R. vs. K.H. – Abbotsford Provincial Court
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.
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. G.T. – Surrey Provincial Court
Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnston provided Crown counsel with information which, along with our client’s progress with counselling, persuaded the Crown to gradually relax our client’s bail conditions and ultimately direct a stay of proceedings on the charge. No further prosecution. No criminal record.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnston provided Crown counsel with information which, along with our client’s progress with counselling, persuaded the Crown to gradually relax our client’s bail conditions and ultimately direct a stay of proceedings on the charge. No further prosecution. No criminal record.
R. vs. B.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: Impaired Driving.
Issue: Whether Crown counsel could prove the impaired driving offence in light of evidence brought forward by Mr. Gauthier which suggested that our client did not voluntarily consume the drug that may have contributed to the the manner of his driving and the ensuing accident.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of dangerous operation and, rather than being convicted of impaired driving, our client was granted a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.
Issue: Whether Crown counsel could prove the impaired driving offence in light of evidence brought forward by Mr. Gauthier which suggested that our client did not voluntarily consume the drug that may have contributed to the the manner of his driving and the ensuing accident.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of dangerous operation and, rather than being convicted of impaired driving, our client was granted a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.
R. vs. D.H.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court
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.
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.
R. vs. W.J.M. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court
Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Upon presenting Crown counsel with a psychological report regarding our client's low risk to commit a similar act, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown to not approve any criminal charges whatsoever. No prosecution. No criminal record.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Upon presenting Crown counsel with a psychological report regarding our client's low risk to commit a similar act, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown to not approve any criminal charges whatsoever. No prosecution. No criminal record.
R. vs. J.A. – Vancouver Provincial Court (DCC)
Charges: Assault; Assault Peace Officer (x2).
Issue: Given the circumstances of our client being severely intoxicated and acting out f character, whether a criminal conviction was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide Crown counsel with our client's background information resulting in a joint recommendation to the Court for a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.
Issue: Given the circumstances of our client being severely intoxicated and acting out f character, whether a criminal conviction was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide Crown counsel with our client's background information resulting in a joint recommendation to the Court for a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.
R. vs. E.L. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: Aggravated Assault; Breach of Probation.
Issue: Given the context of the offences and our client's rehabilitative efforts, whether a jail sentence was appropriate.>br> Result: Mr. Johnston informed Crown counsel of the significant rehabilitative progress our client had made since the offence dates and persuaded Crown to not pursue the 16 month jail sentence they had been seeking. Crown agreed to proceed on the less serious charge of assault causing bodily harm and to stay the remaining charges. After hearing Mr. Johnston's submissions, the court granted our client a one year conditional sentence sentence and two years of probation. This was a particularly positive outcome for our client, who had a prior conviction for a similar offence. No jail.
Issue: Given the context of the offences and our client's rehabilitative efforts, whether a jail sentence was appropriate.>br> Result: Mr. Johnston informed Crown counsel of the significant rehabilitative progress our client had made since the offence dates and persuaded Crown to not pursue the 16 month jail sentence they had been seeking. Crown agreed to proceed on the less serious charge of assault causing bodily harm and to stay the remaining charges. After hearing Mr. Johnston's submissions, the court granted our client a one year conditional sentence sentence and two years of probation. This was a particularly positive outcome for our client, who had a prior conviction for a similar offence. No jail.
