|
|
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judgments Impacting Albertans
|
|
| Thursday, December 17, 2009
On December 17, 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Plaintiffs' Leave to Appeal application in the case of Morrow v. Zhang, 2009 ABCA 215. This ruling means that the Alberta Court of Appeal's decision with respect to the Constitutionality of the Minor Injury Regulation is upheld. Therefore, the law in Alberta is that general damages for minor soft tissue injuries of individuals involved in motor vehicle accidents will be limited to a maximum of $4,500.00 unless there are other types of injuries also present. |
| Wednesday, August 24, 2011
R. v. Tasew, 2011 ABCA 241
This appeal, from Alberta's Court of Appeal, answers the question of what to do when a trial judge identifies more than one fit sentence. An accused is not only able to appeal a trial judge's decision regarding a conviction, but also the sentence imposed by the judge. Appellate courts generally defer to a trial judge's sentence. In this case, the trial judge suggested that a life sentence would be fit. The judge also indicated that if the life sentence were inappropriate, that a sentence of 16 years (including credit) would be appropriate.
The accused was convicted of serious charges including attempted murder. While out on bail he assaulted the same victim. The Court of Appeal agreed that a life sentence would have withstood judicial review. The trial judge seems to have anticipated that the Court of Appeal would feel otherwise and so suggested an alternative just in case of an appeal. This was an error. The Court of Appeal wants sentencing judges to give only one sentence. If the Court of Appeal finds an error, then it will impose its own sentence and not be bound by a trial judge's back-up sentence.
It is one of the principles of sentencing that a court should give the least restrictive punishment that remains fit. When a trial judge offers two alternatives (and the Court of Appeal makes it clear that this should not be done), the less onerous sentence must be imposed. |
| Thursday, August 04, 2011
R v. Nixon, 2011 SCC 34
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") heard an appeal from Alberta concerning a plea bargain between the Crown and Ms. Nixon's defence. The SCC held that a Crown can refuse to honour its plea bargain, but that doing so should be very rare.
Briefly, Ms. Nixon was charged with serious offences, including dangerous driving causing death. The Crown handling the file became concerned with some of its evidence and made a plea agreement to proceed with the lesser charge of careless driving. This Crown’s superiors did not agree with the change and instructed the Crown to repudiate its plea agreement and to reinstate the more serious charges.
This is an important case because plea bargains are a common and expeditious way to resolve a criminal matter. As the Criminal Trial Lawyers' Association noted in its factum, "66% of adult cases in criminal courts resulted in guilty verdicts" of which "87% of the accused in those cases pleaded guilty. It is obvious that a majority of these cases involved some form of plea bargaining."
The SCC decided that a plea bargain is not an undertaking (an enforceable promise between lawyers), but is included underneath the prosecutorial discretion umbrella. As set out in Krieger v. Law Society of Alberta, prosecutorial discretion is subject to judicial review. By not honouring a plea agreement, a Crown may be committing an abuse of process.
Proving an abuse of process is a burden that falls on the party alleging the abuse. One would have to prove trial unfairness would result or that there is a "flagrant impropriety" or a "malicious prosecution." The SCC does note that the Crown has to explain why it will no longer honour its agreement. Not providing an adequate explanation would "weigh heavily" in an abuse of process claim. However, in this case the reason provided is that to honour the agreement would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. An applicant alleging abuse of process would certainly be hard pressed to succeed with an argument this nebulous. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|