When B.A.M. came to Ms. Fagan to hire her to defend him he was facing 37 serious criminal offences, which were being prosecuted by both the Provincial Crown’s office and the Federal Crown’s office. The police received a Crime Stoppers tip that a man was selling cocaine at a pub in the City’s southeast. As a result, the police began an undercover drug investigation which led to B.A.M. Over the course of two months, the police made eight undercover purchases of cocaine from B.A.M.. The majority of these purchases were captured on video, by photograph or both. The police eventually sought a search warrant and on the 9^th planned purchase of cocaine they arrested B.A.M.. The police executed a section 11 Controlled Drugs and Substances Act search warrant on a residence and two vehicles associated to B.A.M.. During the search the police located what was described as a “pharmacy” therein including – OxyContin, methamphetamine, ketamine, cocaine, MDMA, psilocybin and number of prescription drugs along with weapons, a firearm and a distressed dog. B.A.M. had also provided a confession to the police. He was charged with dozens of drug related offences including trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking (contrary to s. 5(1) and 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act). He was also charged with numerous charges alleging cruelty to animals. The deck was stacked against the defence – there was video of B.A.M. selling cocaine on multiple occasions; there were drugs all over his residence and he gave a full confession. B.A.M.’s only objective in hiring Ms. Fagan was to avoid what seemed to be the inevitable – jail time.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in keeping B.A.M. … OUT OF JAIL.

M.Q.M. was charged with assault with a weapon (contrary to section 267 of the Criminal Code), criminal harassment (contrary to section 264 of the Criminal Code) and uttering threats (contrary to section 264.1 of the Criminal Code. The allegations were that M.Q.M. had abused and threatened a female co-worker over the course of several months. The allegations against M.Q.M. were impacting his ability to make a living. M.Q.M. retained Ms. Fagan, who requested and reviewed disclosure and promptly entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled a trial date. Initially the earliest trial dates offered was more than a year down the road. Ms. Fagan successfully argued that her client should have the earliest possible trial date, and thus the trial proceeded more than six months earlier than originally scheduled. At trial the Crown called two witnesses. On behalf of the defence, Ms. Fagan called three. Closing arguments were heard by the Judge. Two weeks later verdicts were rendered on all counts.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in securing verdicts of NOT guilty on all counts. No criminal record was incurred.

P.J.A. was charged with simple assault (s. 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada) following an alleged altercation with his girlfriend. Ms. Fagan was retained and made two initial court appearances on the matter.

BOTTOM LINE: After speaking with the Crown Ms. Fagan was successful in having the charge withdrawn a month after P.J.A. was charged.

P.K.K. had previously served a prison sentence and was under an order not to possess any firearms. Following an investigation into allegations of drug trafficking the police arrested P.K.K.. During the course of his arrest the police allegedly found a firearm on him. P.K.K. retained Ms. Fagan to assist him with obtaining bail. The Crown was initially opposed to P.K.K.’s release on the grounds that his detention was necessary to ensure his attendance in court (“the primary ground” under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code); that his detention was necessary for the protection and safety of the public (“the secondary ground” under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code); that his detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice (“the tertiary ground” under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code). Ms. Fagan, working in collaboration with P.K.K.’s family, was able to craft a compelling plan for release and to convince the Crown Prosecutor to release her client on bail.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in securing P.K.K.’s release on bail on reasonable terms.

In October, 2021 the police began texting with a phone number that they believed to belong to a, or multiple, drug traffickers. During the course of the month that followed the police purchased cocaine from five different individuals, one of which they allege was A.H.Z.. A.H.Z. was charged with trafficking cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime. He retained Ms. Fagan, who entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and elected to have a preliminary inquiry. The issues that Ms. Fagan intended to explore at preliminary inquiry to set up avenues for attack on a trial were: (1) faulty identification procedures used by the police (2) the bona fides of the initial investigation were problematic because they arose during a police undercover investigation course. Ms. Fagan advised the Crown of these issues in advance of preliminary inquiry and that it was her intention to flesh out same.

BOTTOM LINE: All charges were withdrawn at the preliminary inquiry.

The police received a call from a distressed female witness indicating that she was calling on behalf of her friend who had been assaulted by her domestic partner. The domestic partner confirmed that she had been assaulted in later conversations with the police. F.F.C. was charged with assault. F.F.C. had a prior criminal record for assault. Ms. Fagan was retained, entered a plea of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled a trial date. Prior to trial Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice (i.e. an application for relief from the Judge due to the violations of her client’s rights as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). The matter never proceeded to trial.

BOTTOM LINE: The charge against F.F.C. was withdrawn.

The police received confidential source information that R.C.L. was selling cocaine. The police initiated a surveillance operation, and observed R.C.L. engaging in meets of short duration consistent with drug trafficking. The police proceeded to obtain a search warrant to search the vehicle that R.C.L. was seen driving and his residence. A significant amount of cocaine, money and marijuana plants were seized, along with a number of electronic devices (an IPad, cell phones). Police thereafter sought a warrant to search the contents of those devices. The search removed any question about the purpose of the drugs and the person who possessed them – they belonged to R.C.L. and he was selling them. R.C.L. was arrested pursuant to a traffic stop and charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime and unlawful possession of cannabis plants under the Cannabis Act. R.C.L. thereafter provided a full confession to the police. Ms. Fagan was retained, pleas of ‘not guilty’ were entered and a two-day trial in Provincial Court was scheduled. R.C.L. hired Ms. Fagan for one reason: to keep him out of jail.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in keeping R.C.L. out of jail and avoiding the entry of a drug conviction (i.e. R.C.L. walked away with NO criminal record for drugs).

Just after midnight the police received a call from a witness indicating that there was a truck with significant front-end damage and smoke coming out of it. The concern was that this was an impaired driver who had been in an accident. The police mobilized and located the vehicle without a driver inside. Through police computer database checks they were able to ascertain the registered owner’s name, and the name of the most recent known operator of the vehicle (B.A.S.). With the assistance of the fire department, B.A.S. was eventually tracked and apprehended by the police. During the course of his arrest the police allege that he was belligerent, drunk, and injured one of them. B.A.S. was taken to the police station and provided samples of his breath, which were well in excess of the legal limit for blood alcohol levels (140 mg/ %). B.A.S. was charged with assaulting a peace officer (section 270(1)(b) of the Criminal Code), impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit (sections 320.14(a) and 320.14(b) of the Criminal Code). B.A.S. retained Ms. Fagan to defend him. Ms. Fagan promptly obtained disclosure, assessed the file and entered pleas of ‘not guilty’. Initially two days were scheduled for trial, but due to the complexity of the arguments that Ms. Fagan intended on bringing an additional day was scheduled. Ms. Fagan informed the Crown that she intended to challenge (among other things) the grounds for her client’s arrest and the police use of force that resulted in injuries to her client. After significant discussions, the Crown agreed to withdraw all criminal charges against B.A.S..

BOTTOM LINE: No criminal record was incurred by B.A.S. Ms. Fagan was successful in having all criminal charges withdrawn.

The police received a call from R.N.K. asking for assistance with a domestic partner who was having a mental health crisis and had become abusive. The police arrived to find a female in handcuffs, crying with injuries to her face. The police separated the two parties and began questioning them. R.N.K. was calm and collected throughout, repeating what he had told the 911 dispatcher and offering corroboration to support his version of events. Despite some obvious uncertainty about what had occurred, the police (as they often do) charged the male (R.N.K.). R.N.K. came to Ms. Fagan facing charges of assault (s. 266 of the Criminal Code) and unlawful confinement (s. 279(2) of the Criminal Code). ‘Not guilty’ pleas were entered and a one-day trial was scheduled. A month before trial Ms. Fagan scheduled an extensive written Charter notice, detailing the violations of her client’s rights at the hands of this police. This included that they had conducted an unlawful search and seizure in questioning him; that they had violated his right to counsel; his right to silence and his right to be free from arbitrary detention and arrest.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in having all charges against her client withdrawn.

This was an exceptionally complicated prosecution which was jointly prosecuted by the Federal Crown and Provincial Crown. What started as an investigation into a shooting unexpectedly became a serious drug investigation. The police received information from a man who said that a bullet had been fired through the window of his residence. The police conducted an investigation, and determined that the bullet had been shot from the property of B.H.Y. The police sought a warrant to search B.H.Y.’s residence in order to locate and seize the firearm that they believe had been shot. When the police attended at the residence they allegedly observed B.H.Y. dragging a locked safe out of the basement. The police attempted to arrest him and he fled into the residence. The police entered the residence and found what appeared to be a drug processing lab. The police searched the residence and the vehicles. In the residence the police located fentanyl, cocaine and two firearms. In a vehicle parked outside the police located a secret compartment with approximately $80,000 cash. In the safe that B.H.Y. had allegedly been seen dragging the police also located 272g of powder cocaine, 28.4g of crack cocaine, and almost 200g of fentanyl. B.H.K. faced a very serious prosecution, including charges such as discharging a firearm; two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking (cocaine and fentanyl); possession of proceeds of crime, and a weapons charge. The seriousness of the fentanyl charge cannot be understated, B.H.Y would easily face a double-digit jail sentence if convicted of that offence alone. He hired Ms. Fagan who obtained disclosure, entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for a four-day trial. Months in advance of the trial Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice claiming that her client’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated. She filed extensive materials and scheduled a one-day hearing. Upon receipt and review of Ms. Fagan’s materials the Crown prosecutors made the decision to withdraw all charges against B.H.Y.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in having all charges withdrawn against her client. No criminal record was incurred.

H.B.B. was charged in relation to an alleged domestic dispute with his “on again/ off again” girlfriend. He was alleged to have kicked in a door and entered her home. The police located H.B.B. a short distance away and proceeded to identify and question him. He was eventually charged with the very serious offence of breaking and entering with the intent to commit an indictable offence. Ms. Fagan entered a plea of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled a trial. A month prior to trial Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice alleging a breach of her client’s Charter rights, including the breach of his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; his right not to be arbitrarily detained; his right to be advised of the reason for his detention and his right to counsel.

BOTTOM LINE: The charge of break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence was completely withdrawn.

Same client. Same day. After the police arrested H.B.B. for break and enter with intent he was taken to arrest processing where he was released on bail conditions later that night. One of those conditions was that he was forbidden from contacting his “on again/ off again” girlfriend. Almost immediately upon being released from custody, H.B.B. allegedly proceeded to text, call and email her in violation of the terms of his bail. She reported it to the police, who attended at his house later that evening. According to the officer who arrested him, H.B.B. was grossly intoxicated and resisted arrest. An altercation occurred. H.B.B. was charged with criminal harassment and breaching the terms of his bail conditions. He again hired Ms. Fagan, who entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled a trial.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in having all charges against H.B.B. completely withdrawn.

S.N.M. was charged with what is colloquially referred to as “domestic assault”. His fiancé alleged that he woke up in the middle of the night and struck her in the face with a closed fist resulting in cuts and a bloody nose. When this was reported to the police S.N.M. was charged and released on bail. S.N.M. retained Ms. Fagan to defend him. Ms. Fagan entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for trial. Ms. Fagan reviewed the arresting officer’s body worn camera footage and believed that her client was unlawfully arrested and detained, in violation of his section 9 Charter rights. She filed a Charter notice prior to trial.

BOTTOM LINE: On the day of trial the charge against her client was withdrawn.

A.A.M. was one 6 targets in a multi-month investigation initiated by members of “DUST” (Drug Undercover Street Team), police officers with specialized training and experience in the area of drug trafficking. A.A.M. was alleged to have sold cocaine on two occasions to an undercover officer. After the police made the second purchase of cocaine, they conducted an arrest (referred to as a “buy and bust”). When he was searched the police located a significant amount of powder cocaine and crack cocaine, in the vehicle he was driving. Police also located cash in the vehicle, including the money that had been paid by the undercover officer who bought cocaine from him the first time. A.A.M. was charged with two counts of trafficking in cocaine (s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act); possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act) and possession of proceeds of crime (s. 355 of the Criminal Code). A.A.M. hired Ms. Fagan, who entered pleas of ‘not guilty’.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in keeping her client out of jail.

S.N.M. was charged with assaulting his domestic partner, violating the terms of an Emergency Protection Order and four counts of violating his bail conditions. Late one night the police received an anonymous complaint saying that a woman was having a physical altercation with her boyfriend. The police responded and entered the residence of the female where they found S.N.M. hiding naked in the closet. He was arrested and charged. He hired Ms. Fagan to defend him. Ms. Fagan obtained disclosure where concerns about the credibility and reliability of the witnesses were evident. She entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for trial.

BOTTOM LINE: All charges against S.N.M. were completely withdrawn. S.N.M. did not have to step foot in a courtroom.

For the third time S.N.M was arrested for charges in relation to his domestic partner. A third party contacted the police and told them that S.N.M. had entered the woman’s home and a physical altercation was occurring as he called. He said that she was being held against her will. The police arrived and observed a woman with injuries. Again, S.N.M. was found naked and hiding in the closet. Ms. Fagan again entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled a trial.

BOTTOM LINE: All charges against S.N.M. were completely withdrawn. S.N.M. did not have to step foot in a courtroom.

The Lethbridge Police Service received confidential source information that N.B.Z. was dealing cocaine. The police began conducting surveillance and observed N.B.Z. engaging in meets of short duration consistent with drug trafficking. He was seen exiting a residence before these suspicious meets and after; the police confirmed with computer database checks that N.B.Z. was known to live at that residence. Eventually the police sought a warrant to enter and search the residence. When they did, they located firearms, 282g of cocaine, 22.4g of MDMA and body armour. N.B.Z. was charged with two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking, four firearms offences and possession of proceeds of crime. When he was arrested N.B.Z. gave a full confession to the police. He hired Ms. Fagan to defend him. She promptly obtained disclosure, entered pleas of not guilty and scheduled the matter for trial. If Ms. Fagan were unsuccessful in defending her client, he would be sentenced to a significant period of federal incarceration. Ms. Fagan’s strategy was to challenge (1) the sufficiency of the grounds for the search warrant; (2) the sufficiency of the grounds for arrest; (3) the voluntariness of the confession obtaining, including an argument that her client’s right to counsel had been violated when the police interviewed him. The matter was scheduled for a three-day trial in Lethbridge Provincial Court.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in keeping her client out of jail.

S.M.S. was charged with multiple counts of trafficking cocaine. In short, he was alleged to have sold cocaine to an undercover police officer on multiple occasions. The matter was scheduled for a four day trial in the Court of Queen’s Bench. Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice alleging a number of breaches of her client’s rights, including that his right to counsel had been violated. Ms. Fagan also advised the Crown that she would be pursuing an entrapment argument should her other avenues of defence fail. S.M.S. faced a mandatory jail sentence of a significant length (i.e. federal time) if Ms. Fagan was unsuccessful at trial.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in keeping her client out of jail.

Surveillance officers observed a group engaging in activity consistent with drug trafficking, which triggered their decision to arrest the occupants of a vehicle. Within the vehicle police located D.G.V., who was allegedly breaching the terms of his bail on another drug matter. He was supposed to be on 24/7 curfew and was located outside of his home at the time of his arrest. Police also discovered that he had twelve warrants out for his arrest. A backpack located within the vehicle that allegedly contained: 8g of crack cocaine, 3g of powder cocaine, 4g of fentanyl, 4 OxyContin pills, a digital scale and cash. D.G.V. was charged with four counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking (which is punishable by up to life in prison), possession of proceeds of crime and with breaching the terms of his bail conditions. He hired Ms. Fagan to attempt to secure his release on bail, notwithstanding the obvious uphill battle.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was securing the client’s release on bail on reasonable terms.

P.C.K. was alleged to have groped a young woman at a C-Train station. He was charged sexual assault, contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code. It came to light that P.C.K. had been diagnosed with and suffered from a mental illness. Ms. Fagan successfully had P.C.K. referred to the mental health diversion program.

Bottom line: The charge was completely withdrawn.

S.K.R. was charged with sexual interference with a person under the age of 16 contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code and sexual assault contrary to s. 271. Conviction on either (or both) of these counts would result in a significant jail sentence. The young complainant alleged that S.K.R. engaged in progressively more invasive sexual advances which culminated in an allegation of vaginal and anal penetration (with a dildo). S.K.R. vehemently denied the allegations. The matter was scheduled for a four-day trial and a one-day s. 11(b) Charter application (sometimes referred to as a “Jordan application”). In the context of this Jordan application Ms. Fagan argued that there was a breach of her client’s right to be tried in a reasonable time. Extensive materials were filed and oral submissions were heard from both Crown and Defence. The presiding Judge agreed with Ms. Fagan and entered a stay of proceedings on all charges. The trial dates were vacated and S.K.R. did not have to proceed to the trial.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in terminating the prosecution against her client on a Charter voir dire. 

S.M.S was charged with assaulting another person in a “road rage” incident alleged to have happened on one of the city’s major roadways. S.M.S was alleged to have thrown a soda bottle at another vehicle after it had cut him off. Both vehicles pulled over and a fist fight ensued. The complainant claimed that S.M.S. had also hit him in the face with a shovel. Ms. Fagan was successful in having the charge against her client withdrawn before trial.

BOTTOM LINE: No trial and no criminal record for S.M.S.. He never even had to step foot in a courtroom.

RCMP Auto Theft received a complaint from someone who believed they purchased a cloned Dodge RAM vehicle and thought it might be stolen. RCMP Auto Theft conducted an exam on the vehicle and confirmed the vehicle was stolen and that the VIN had been changed in an attempt to try and conceal the true identity of the stolen vehicle. O.K. was charged with fraud and acting on a forged document (s. 380(1)(b) and s. 368(1)(a) of the Criminal Code). Ms. Fagan was successful in having the charges against her client withdrawn before trial.

BOTTOM LINE: No trial and no criminal record for O.K. He never even had to step foot in a courtroom.

This was a complex bail matter. The police were attending at a residence to arrest N.M.D. on a warrant for what was alleged to be a violent and lengthy domestic assault. It had been reported to the police that N.M.D. over the course of several hours beat, strangled and threatened his romantic partner. Police observed N.M.D. enter a high-end vehicle and observed as he sped through various communities in the northeast quadrant of the city. Police observed him switch vehicles multiple times, until he eventually entered what the police believed to be a stolen vehicle. The police initiated a traffic stop and arrested N.M.D. On arrest they located a number of handguns. He charged with two sets of criminal offences – three relating to the alleged domestic assault and eight relating to the handgun, including carrying a concealed weapon.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was securing N.M.D.’s release on bail on reasonable terms.

this case read very much like a script for the movie “Gone in 60 Seconds”. G.N.A. was charged in a complex multi-month cross-border investigation into an alleged sophisticated vehicle theft and re-vinning operation. Multiple people were charged in locations across Western Canada. In total, G.N.A. faced a total of 15 criminal charges. Ms. Fagan was counsel from day one over the course of two years. She was successful in securing a stay of proceedings on all charges without G.N.A. having to step foot in a courtroom. Additionally, Ms. Fagan was successful in obtaining the return of a significant amount of cash that had been seized from N.G.A. All cash was returned to the client.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was able to halt the prosecution of all charges against G.N.A. No criminal record was incurred.