|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Criminal Law |
| Our lawyers are committed to the effective representation of an individual's rights within the Criminal Justice System. We are experienced trial lawyers in the areas of narcotics offences, violent crimes, impaired offences, and provide appellate(appeal) services for all conviction and sentence matters. |
|
 |
| Personal Injury |
| Our personal injury members are experienced litigation lawyers dedicated to assisting individuals during the stressful aftermath of a motor vehicle collision or other traumatic injury. We assist our clients with the resolution of their claims, providing them with strong representation. We represent our clients in these matters on a contingency basis. Please contact us for details. |
|
|
| Civil Litigation |
| We assist individuals, either plaintiff or defendant, with general areas of civil litigation. |
|
|
| Family Law |
| At a very trying and difficult time, there are many questions surrounding familial issues. It is essential that you know your rights and obligations arising out of marriage, cohabitation, and separation and be advised how to proceed to enforce those rights, meet your obligations, and be protected. |
|
|
| Real Estate |
| Our Real Estate lawyers offer assistance and representation with residential and small business real estate purchase and sale transactions. |
|
|
| Corporate Services |
| Our Corporate Lawyers handle incorporation and general Corporate matters. |
|
|
| Wills and Estates |
| The Wills and Estates lawyers offer assistance to clients in the drafting of wills, probate of estates, drafting personal directives, and powers of attorney. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alberta Criminal Judgments
|
|
| Tuesday, March 25, 2008
R. v. Townsend, 2008 ABCA 44
Appeal from decision of Hart J. on September 8, 2006 allowing the Respondent's appeal from conviction for impaired driving.
Martin J.A. (Hunt J.A. and Brooker J.A. concurring): Appeal allowed and conviction restored.
Facts: Officer followed Respondent after informed by Tim Horton's employee that Respondent may be impaired. Observed Respondent run red light and make somewhat erratic unsignalled left turn. Police stop. Respondent asked why he was stopped and officer explained driving infractions. Officer asked for documents. Saw blood-shot eyes, slurred speech, smell of alcohol and very slow movements when producing documents. Arrested in the police vehicle and informed of Charter rights. The trial judge did not exclude the evidence and convicted. Summary conviction appeal judge allowed the appeal.
Are an accused's slurred speech and dexterity problems in producing documents admissible to prove impairment if obtained prior to informing the accused of his Charter rights?
Yes. Unrealistic to think that officers who stop vehicles for traffic infractions that they are not alert to possibility of other offences. Limitation of use of roadside device in Milne and Orbanski not to apply to officer's observations while carrying out other authorized duties (i.e. request for documents). The observations existed independently of what the officer did or said. read more ... |
| Tuesday, February 26, 2008
R. v. Chan, 2008 ABCA 88
Appeal from conviction of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime by Moore J. on July 19, 2004.
Ritter J.A. (Picard J.A. and Paperny J.A. concurring): Appeal allowed and new trial ordered.
Facts: Major issue at trial was identification of Appellant as a participant in trafficking two ounces of heroin. Trial involved one police agent and ten police officers. Problems with identification in most officers' testimony. Undercover officer could not identify Appellant in photo line-up. Sentencing 5 months after conviction. Trial judge found sleeping during sentencing submissions. Mistrial application dismissed.
Did the Appellant suffer prejudice at trial because the judge was found sleeping during sentencing?
No. An accused person must, at a minimum, show a real danger of prejudice before judicial inattentiveness will justify setting aside verdict. No evidence that trial judge was sleeping during trial (similar posture as during sentencing is mere speculation).
Was the verdict unreasonable?
Yes. The trial judge completely disregarded problems with photographic line-up that was potentially exculpatory.
Did the trial judge fail to give adequate reasons?
Yes. No explanation why the officers' testimony was believed and the Appellant's was not. Moreover, difficult to reconcile finding of guilt with credible officers who were unable to identify the Appellant. When identification is not overwhelming, meaningful analysis needed of why exculpatory evidence is rejected. Not enough to cloak Crown witnesses with credibility. read more ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|