Y.Y. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles – Review of Driving Prohibition
Charge: Notice of Intent to Prohibit.
Issue: Whether RoadSafety BC had appropriate reasons to prohibit our client from driving for 4 months.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade the Superintendent’s adjudicator that the 4 month driving prohibition was not warranted. The driving prohibition was reduced to 2 months.
R. vs. R.H. – North Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: Assault (x2); Threatening; Breach of Undertaking (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether it was appropriate for the Court to convict him.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to proceed on only a single count of assault. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.
R. vs. D.I. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charges: Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm; Driving Without Due Care and Attention.
Issue: Whether it was appropriate for Crown to charge our client under the Criminal Code or the Motor Vehicle Act in regard to an accident where our client’s vehicle struck a cyclist from behind, causing serious injury.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown which resulted in Crown proceeding under the Motor Vehicle Act. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a $1000 fine and limited his ability to drive for 12 months. No criminal conviction. No loss of insurance coverage. No jail.
R. vs. C.G. – North Vancouver Provincial Court
Charge: s. 810 Peace Bond Application.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether the complainant continued to have fear of our client.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to withdraw its Peace Bond application. No conditions. No record.
R. vs. L.B. – North Vancouver Provincial Court
Charge: Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had completed and given the compelling explanation of why the offence occurred, whether it was in the public interest for our client to recieve a conviction.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade the Crown to proceed summarily on the lesser offence of Fraud Under $5000, and after hearing Mr. Johnson’s submission, the court granted our client an absolute discharge. No criminal record.
R. vs. R.G. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was substantial likelihood of a conviction in this “road rage” assault case.
Result: Mr. Johnson provided information to the Crown that suggested our client was acting in self defence. No charge approved. No criminal record.
R. vs. R.R. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charge: Theft Over $5000.
Issue: Given the steps taken by our client to repay a substantial amount of the alleged $70,000 theft from his employer, whether it was in the public interest for the Crown to pursue a jail sentence that, given the breach of trust, would normally be called for.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that they could only prove theft in the amount of $40,000. He was then able to persuade Crown to proceed summarily on 8 counts of Theft Under $5000 and to make a joint submission for a conditional sentence. After hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the court granted our client a 6 month conditional sentence and made a stand alone restitution order. No jail.
R. vs. T.G. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charge: Assault with a Weapon; Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps Mr. Johnson was able to steer our client through, whether our client would be convicted of the offences.
Result: After hearing Mr. Johnson’s submissions on our client’s behalf, the Judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No conviction; no criminal record.
UBC Independent Investigations Office vs. B.F.
Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether the complainant could prove her allegation of being sexually assaulted.
Result: Mr. Johnson provided information to the investigator on our client’s behalf, and at the conclusion of the hearing, the allegation was dismissed.
R. vs. X.Z. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings, bringing the matter to an end. No criminal record.
R. vs. D.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court
Charge: Committing an indecent act (reduced to causing a disturbance).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution on the indecent act charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of causing a disturbance, and after hearing Mr. Mines’ submissions, the Court granted our client an absolute discharge. No criminal record.
R. vs. F.M. – North Vancouver Provincial Court
Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether a jail sentence was appropriate in this case.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to steer our client through an appropriate course of rehabilitation and was then able to persuade the Court to grant our client an 18 month conditional sentence. No jail.
