2024

R. v. G.G.G. – [Court of King’s Bench, Calgary, December 2024]

In August, 2022 G.G.G. was involved in a fatal collision on a rural Alberta road. His vehicle had travelled through a stop sign without stopping and had struck the vehicle of another man, who did not survive. G.G.G. miraculously was unharmed and advised the first witness on scene that he had tried to stop, but his floor mat had crumpled up and obstructed his pedals. By the time he had corrected, it was too late to avoid the collision. This is the same story that he told the police when they arrived. The Airbag Control Module was seized from G.G.G.’s vehicle which determined that five seconds prior to impact – the vehicle was travelling between 128 – 135 km/hr (the speed limit was 100 km/hr) and that just before the collision G.G.G.’s vehicle decelerated to under 80 km/hr and swerved drastically. G.G.G. was charged with the criminal offence of dangerous driving causing death. 

G.G.G. hired Ms. Fagan to defend him. ‘Not guilty’ pleas were entered and an election of trial by Jury in Kings Bench, with a preliminary inquiry was made. The matter was scheduled for a two-day preliminary inquiry in a rural Alberta courthouse. Over the course of the two days, the Crown called its witnesses, including an Accident Reconstructionist. Prior to the preliminary inquiry Ms. Fagan had hired her own Accident Reconstructionist/ engineer to assist her in preparing to cross-examine the Crown’s expert. Ms. Fagan was able to challenge the Crown expert, who conceded that the Airbag Control Module was not inconsistent with a floor mat obstructing the brake pedal, as G.G.G. had described. As it is not the job of a Judge at a preliminary inquiry to weigh the quality of the evidence, G.G.G. was naturally committed to stand trial. Ms. Fagan continued to ask the Crown to consider whether its case was strong enough to take to trial in light of what had occurred at the preliminary inquiry. A five-day jury trial was scheduled in King’s Bench. Ultimately, after nearly two years of Ms. Fagan defending this charge, the Crown agreed to withdrawn the criminal charge without proceeding to trial. 

BOTTOM LINE: The criminal charge of dangerous driving causing death was completely withdrawn, and a plea to a traffic ticket was entered for a fine of $2,000.00. No criminal record was incurred by G.G.G.

R. v. C.C.L. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Cochrane, December 2024]

C.C.L. and her husband had been married for many years. C.C.L. discovered that he had been having an affair and confronted him about it. A physical altercation ensued and both parties were injured. As she tried to flee, C.C.L. allegedly ran over her husband’s foot and the police were called. The police chose to lay charges against C.C.L. including assault with a weapon (a vehicle), assault with a weapon (a metal water bottle) and a simple assault. C.C.L. hired Ms. Fagan to defend her.  

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was able to secure the withdrawal of the charge at the third court appearance without the need to schedule the matter for trial.  

R. v. W.L.R. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Youth Division, Calgary, October 2024]

W.L.R. was a youth. His adult sister initiated a physical argument with W.L.R., which resulted in him allegedly punching her in the face. She called the police and W.L.R. was charged with simple assault, contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.  

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was able to secure the withdrawal of the charge against the youth without the need to schedule this matter for trial.

R. v. V.T.J. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, November 2024]

V.T.J. was a small business owner, and employed his wife to assist him with paperwork. He had suspicions that his wife “sleeping on the job” as she worked from home. When he arrived home early one day, he caught her sleeping on the couch instead of working. A verbal argument ensued and V.T.J. endeavored to leave the scene. When he attempted to grab the keys to his company vehicle, his wife tried to stop him. She alleged that he then grabbed her by the throat and head-butted her. Both parties threatened to call the police on each other. When the police arrived, they saw a bruise on the complainant and charged V.T.J. with assault causing bodily harm, contrary to s. 267(b) of the Criminal Code. 

V.T.J. hired Ms. Fagan to defend him. Ms. Fagan obtained and reviewed disclosure, entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled a one-day trial. Thirty days prior to trial, Ms. Fagan filed a Charter Notice stating that her client’s rights were violated. Specifically, that V.T.J.’s arrest was warrantless, unreasonable in the circumstances and a violation of his section 9 Charter rights; the police failure to release him on conditions from scene, which was a second violation of section 9; and third, that the police over held him at the Arrest Processing Unit, giving rise to yet another section 9 violation.  

BOTTOM LINE: The morning of trial Ms. Fagan was successful in securing the withdrawal of V.T.J.’s charge pursuant to a peace bond.

R. v. H.M. – [Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, Calgary, November 2024]

It was alleged that H.M. had a dispute with his wife and mother-in-law in a hospital. The wife and mother-in-law told the police that H.M. had threatened to kill them in the same way that his relatives had killed their own wives. He also allegedly struck/ assaulted his wife. M.H. was arrested and hired a lawyer for bail (not Ms. Fagan). M.H. was detained by a Judge on all three grounds – the Judge believed M.H. was a flight risk, that he would commit further offences if released on bail/ interfere with witnesses, and that the public confidence in the justice system would be undermined if he was released. H.M. spent over forty-five days in custody. He eventually hired Ms. Fagan to conduct a review of the Judge’s decision (i.e. a bail review in the Court of King’s Bench). Ms. Fagan promptly obtained transcripts, liaised with M.H.’s family on a daily basis and scheduled the matter for a King’s Bench Bail Review. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in securing the release of H.M. on bail.

R. v. W.S.R. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, December 2024]

W.S.R. was a father who had two children (one adult, one youth) get into a physical altercation. He separated the children, and one of them called the police alleging that W.S.R. had put her in a choke hold.  W.S.R. was charged with assault (choking), contrary to section 267(c) of the Criminal Code. Protracted back-and-forth occurred between Crown and Ms. Fagan on this matter. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was able to secure the withdrawal of the charge against W.S.R. pursuant to a peace bond.

R. v. L.P.C. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Strathmore, December 2024]

L.P.C. was alleged to have struck his wife with a pan. She reported it to the police and showed them a bruise. L.P.C. was charged with assault with a weapon (section 267(a) of the Criminal Code). He hired Ms. Fagan and explained what happened. Ms. Fagan promptly communicated with the Crown about what occurred, and notified her of L.P.C’s good faith efforts to address the problem.  

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was able to secure the withdrawal of the charge at the second court appearance without the need to schedule the matter for trial. 

R. v. S.W.W. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, December 2024]

S.W.W. had a high-profile job and difficult relationship with a former romantic partner (the complainant) who suffered from a number of mental health and addiction issues. The complainant alleged that on a specific night he grabbed her by the throat – choked, punched, and slapped her and also threatened her life. S.W.W. was arrested and charged with assault (section 266 of the Criminal Code), assault by choking (section 267(c) of the Criminal Code and uttering threats (section 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code). When arrested S.W.W. categorically denied the allegations and stated that they were made up. He hired Ms. Fagan to defend him. Stakes were particularly high for S.W.W. as he was the CEO of a publicly traded company and required security clearance to maintain his job. The allegations against him put his career in significant jeopardy. Disclosure was obtained and reviewed, ‘not guilty’ pleas were entered, and a two-day trial was scheduled. 

BOTTOM LINE: The matter proceeded to trial and the Crown called their witnesses. Partway through Ms. Fagan’s cross-examination of the complainant, the Crown completely withdrew all charges against S.W.W.

R. v. A.N.M. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, December 2024]

A.N.M. was charged with assault (choking) arising out of an alleged dispute with her sister. Her sister claimed that she was struck several times, and pinned to the ground by a foot on her neck. A.N.M. retained Ms. Fagan to defend her.  

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was able to secure the withdrawal of the charge within three months of being retained.

R. v. R.C. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Edmonton, April 2024]

R.C. was charged with breaching the terms of his probation and assault (choking) of his girlfriend. The circumstances arose from a stay at a hotel in Edmonton. A house keeper witnessed a female being pushed into a room while screaming and crying. The house keeper engaged her boss, who called the police. R.C. fled the scene before the police arrived. Police interviewed the complainant and sought a warrant for R.C.’s arrest. R.C. retained Ms. Fagan who orchestrated his arrest and release on bail conditions. He thereafter retained her for trial. Ms. Fagan sought and reviewed disclosure. Not guilty pleas were entered and a trial date was scheduled. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan showed up on the morning trial and was able to secure a resolution that ultimately resulted in no entry of a criminal record.  

R. v. L.L.K. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, September 2024]

This was a very serious set of allegations involving arson. In December of 2016 the Calgary Fire Department and Calgary Police Service responded to a home engulfed in flames in south west Calgary. This was a home that was rented by L.L.K, her husband and her young children. The arson unit was called to determine cause and origin of the fire (i.e. was it intentionally set, or an accident?). The evidence was that there were two separate fires in the basement that had been intentionally set using an ignitable liquid, and the circumstantial evidence pointed towards L.L.K.  There was also evidence from civilian witnesses that L.L.K. had set an earlier fire in the residence just weeks prior. While investigations were still on going, K.L. and her family relocated overseas. Investigators believed this to be an arson for the benefit of an insurance payout. An arrest warrant was issued for L.L.K. and she was ultimately charged with two counts of section 434 of the Criminal Code (Arson, punishable by up to fourteen years in prison) and two counts of section 435 of the Criminal Code (Arson for a fraudulent purpose, punishable by up to ten years in prison). 

L.L.K. retained Ms. Fagan to defend her. Ms. Fagan requested and reviewed disclosure, entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for a five-day preliminary inquiry, to be followed by a King’s Bench Jury trial (should L.L.K. be committed to stand trial at the conclusion of the preliminary inquiry). In the meantime, Ms. Fagan also hired an independent fire investigator to provide a second opinion on the cause and origin of the fire. Multiple requests were made by Ms. Fagan for particular disclosure from the Crown Prosecutor that related to testing and measurements etc. taken from the scene of the fire. For reasons unknown, it was not provided until the first day of preliminary inquiry in 2023. The preliminary inquiry had to be rescheduled. During the year which passed between the first preliminary inquiry and the second, Ms. Fagan partook in case management meetings and multiple conversations with the Crown. She pointed out the issues with the Crown’s case, and the mounting concern about her client’s right to be tried within a reasonable time. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in securing a stay of proceedings on all charges (i.e. the termination of the prosecution against L.L.K.).

R. v. G.S.G. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, October 2024]

G.S.G. was a man with significant addiction problems. One night, while significantly impaired, he allegedly called his ex-girlfriend and left a voicemail threatening to stab her and her dog. The recording of the voicemail was handed over to the police and G.S.G. was charged with two counts of uttering threats (contrary to sections 264(1)(c) and 264(1)(a) of the Criminal Code). G.S.G. was arrested and many hours later was released from police custody on bail conditions, including a condition that he not contact his ex-girlfriend. In the hours following his release he allegedly made dozens of calls to his ex-girlfriend in contravention of his bail order. He was promptly re-arrested and charged with a second set of charges – breaching the terms of his bail conditions, contrary to section 145(3) of the Criminal Code. He hired Ms. Fagan to defend both criminal prosecutions. Acting on the instructions of G.K.G., Ms. Fagan endeavored to secure the withdrawal of the charges pursuant to a peace bond. The Crown refused, as G.K.G. had previously had the benefit of two prior peace bonds. 

Ms. Fagan promptly sought and reviewed disclosure and scheduled the matters for two one-day trials. In the meantime, G.S.G. took significant steps to address his addiction. 

BOTTOM LINE: Prior to the trial on the “uttering threats” matter, Ms. Fagan filed a Charter Notice detailing various breaches of her client’s Charter rights that she intended to litigate at trial. This included a breach of his section 7, 8, 9, 10(b) and 12 Charter rights. Ms. Fagan was also candid with the assigned Crown prosecutor about the significant steps her client had taken to address his addiction. On the basis of the foregoing both sets of charges against G.W.G. were ultimately withdrawn pursuant to a peace bond.

R. v. B.T.W. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Strathmore, September 2024]

In early August 2023, RCMP received a complaint from a grocery store. It was alleged that B.T.W. had stolen some raw meat (worth approximately $400.00). The Loss Prevention Officer tried to grab the bag of from B.T.W. as she was leaving the store. A physical altercation ensued in which B.T.W. allegedly committed an assault. B.T.W. was charged with theft and the very serious offence of robbery (contrary to sections 334(b) and 344(1)(b) of the Criminal Code). 

B.T.W. retained Ms. Fagan. B.T.W. was a member of the LGBTQIA2S+ community and requested an officer of a particular gender to conduct the mandatory safety search. B.T.W. communicated this to Ms. Fagan, and advised that this request was denied. 

BOTTOM LINE: Through communications with the Crown Ms. Fagan conveyed her client’s circumstances and was successful in having all the charges against B.T.W. withdrawn.

R. v. B.B.F. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Lloydminster, August 2024]

RCMP in British Columbia were investigating a completely separate matter involving allegations of possession of child pornography. While they were conducting a search warrant they found drugs and a number of firearms. One of these firearms was believed to have been stolen from Alberta. This firearm was registered to B.B.F.. The police conducted an investigation into B.B.F. and ultimately executed a search warrant on her home. During the search they located seven firearms which they alleged were unlawfully stored. B.B.F. was charged with section 86(2) of the Criminal Code (unlawful storage of a firearm) and section 105(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, that she failed to report the loss of a firearm as required to do so. B.B.F. was an avid shooter and gun owner her entire life. It was critical for her not only to avoid conviction on this matter, but to secure the return of her firearms, many of which held sentimental value. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was able to get all charges against her client withdrawn AND secure the return from the police of the requested firearms.

R. v. L.Y. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, August 2024]

In the summer of 2023 L.Y. was involved in a collision with a van stopped at a red light. Two witnesses, who were the occupants of the van, stated they saw L.Y. ram into the concrete barricade twice before rear ending them, and that after striking the van she tried to drive away. When the police arrived on scene L.Y. admitted that she had “consumed a few drinks”. She also had a child in the car. While most allegations of impaired driving are not prosecuted criminally, this one was. When she provided samples of her breath, she was more than three and a half times over the legal limit of blood alcohol. She was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit (sections 320.14(1)(a) and 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code). She hired Ms. Fagan to defend her. Ms. Fagan requested and reviewed disclosure, and eventually entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled a trial date. 

BOTTOM LINE: A Charter Notice was filed thirty days prior to the trial, wherein Ms. Fagan alleged a breach of her client’s right to counsel (s. 10(b)) and her corollary right to silence (s. 7). Ms. Fagan was successful in having all charges withdrawn prior to the first day of trial.

R. v. K.F. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Didsbury, August 2024]

In early spring of 2023, an employee of a mobile phone authorized dealer attended Olds RCMP to report that their store had been a victim of fraud. It was alleged that K.F. attended the store and opened a cellphone account using a fake Canadian Permanent Resident card. He also allegedly purchased two iPhones totalling $3,494.00 which were to be billed to the account (but were never paid). K.F. then allegedly attended a Sundre location of the same store and attempted the same thing. Police obtained witness statements and conducted a photo lineup with the store employee. The employee positively identified K.F., who was then charged with identity theft, identity fraud and fraud under $5,000.00 (contrary to sections 402.2(1), 403(1)(b), and 380(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. 

It was later learned that K.F. had an extensive record and had served jail time for similar fraudulent activity. K.F. hired Ms. Fagan who requested disclosure. During the course of several months Ms. Fagan repeatedly requested that the Crown provide a copy of the audiovisual footage of the photo lineup, as “identification” of the alleged fraudster was anticipated to be the prime issue at trial. For reasons unknown, it took the police/ Crown many months to eventually provide this disclosure. Ms. Fagan approached the Crown and pointed out not only the weaknesses in the Crown’s case, but also that disclosure had led to significant delay. Ms. Fagan was ultimately going to bring an application for a stay of proceedings (i.e. termination of the prosecution against her client) as a consequence of the violation of her client’s right to a trial within a reasonable time (section 11(b) of the Charter). 

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

R. v. C.K. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, July 2024]

C.K. and his ex-fiancé were trying to reconcile their relationship. They were having some drinks together, when C.K. allegedly began harassing one of her friends by way of social media. When she asked him to stop he became angry and a verbal argument ensued. C.K. allegedly poured an entire drink over the complainant’s head, hit her from behind, and flushed her medications down the toilet. He allegedly then placed her in a choke hold, causing her to pass out, she says she awoke to being dragged, kicked, slapped and punched. C.K. was charged with assault (section 266 of the Criminal Code), mischief/ damage to property (section 430 of the Criminal Code) and assault by choking (section 267(c) of the Criminal Code). Choking someone to the point of unconsciousness, if proven, is an offence taken very seriously by our courts because of the inherent risks. 

C.K. hired Ms. Fagan who endeavored to first secure a peace bond (i.e. the withdrawal of the charges). The Crown (for obvious reasons) refused. Ms. Fagan then entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for a two-day trial. 

BOTTOM LINE: Prior to trial, Ms. Fagan revisited conversations with the Crown Prosecutor presenting additional information. Ultimately, the matter was resolved by a nine-month peace bond, and all charges against C.K. were completely withdrawn prior to trial.

R. v. B.A. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, July 2024]

B.A. was charged under the Consumer Protection Act with one count of section 161(g), and one count of section 163(a).  The upshot was that B.A. was alleged to have engaged in a designated business (an automotive repair business) without being the holder of an automative business licence. There had been previous orders that he cease and desist, but those orders were allegedly ignored by him. The complainant alleged that he gave B.A. a shell of a classic vintage vehicle in the hopes of having it restored.  He alleged that the work was never done, and that he was owed approximately $14,000.00 by B.A.

BOTTOM LINE: B.A. was initially self-represented, and tried to explain his circumstances to the Crown Prosecutor.  The Crown told him that he could plead guilty to both the charges, pay a $10,000.00 fine, and return the money owed to the complainant. B.A. (wisely) rejected the Crown offer and retained Ms. Fagan. She was able to get the charges completely withdrawn.

R. v. K.G. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Airdrie, July 2024]

In 2018 a police report was filed with the Airdrie RCMP providing documentation from the owner of a retail store. The report alleged that an employee had been fraudulently making returns on his personal debit card for almost a year. It was alleged that K.G. had fraudulently stolen $76,000.00. Police obtained a search warrant for the financial records of K.G., and corroborated the allegations of the store owner. K.G. was charged with section 334(a) of the Criminal Code. This was an indictable offence and K.G. faced up to ten years in jail. These were serious allegations, as the Alberta Court of Appeal has repeatedly said that persons convicted theft from their employers should (with few exceptions) be facing jail. 

BOTTOM LINE: K.G. had initially retained another lawyer (i.e. not Ms. Fagan) without any favourable result over many years. K.G. then retained Ms. Fagan and within a matter of weeks the charge against him was completely withdrawn.

R. v. D.R. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Airdrie, June 2024]

This was case involving alleged threats uttered by D.R. to his wife. The case was paper thin. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in having the charge against her client completely withdrawn at the first court appearance.

R. v. D.K. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Okotoks, June 2024]

In late November 2023 the High River RCMP were dispatched for a male yelling at peace officers. One officer stated that he ordered D.K. to stop as it appeared he had open liquor in a brown bag. D.K., who was on foot, allegedly refused to stop for police and instead yelled at them and called them names. Officers told him to stop but D.K. just kept insulting them and walking away until he got to his house and entered it. D.K. then phoned 911 reporting officers trying to stop him. D.K. was charged with resisting arrest contrary to s. 129(a) of the Criminal Code. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan’s position was that the police had acted unlawfully and she communicated this to the Crown prosecutor at the earliest opportunity. The Crown ostensibly agreed and the charge was withdrawn without the need to schedule a trial date.

R. v. S.W.G. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, June 2024]

S.W.G. was on a flight from British Columbia to Calgary. Police received an unruly passenger complaint at the airport. The allegation was that he was disruptive while boarding the flight, then during the flight asked for an alcoholic beverage but was refused. One passenger noticed that he was “bothering” two children that he was sitting with. This passenger asked the crew to move S.W.G to another seat. S.W.G then allegedly became disorderly – swearing at the cabin crew and threatening to assault the male cabin crew member. S.W.G. was charged with s. 175(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code (unlawfully causing a disturbance in a public place by being intoxicated). 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in having the charge against her client completely withdrawn without the need to schedule this matter for trial.

R. v. T.B. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Drayton Valley, June 2024]

Rural RCMP officers received an emergency 911 call for service reporting that there was a female walking on Highway 39, crying and being followed by a red car. The “good Samaritan” stopped and gave her a ride. The female disclosed to the “good Samaritan” that her husband had assaulted her, by punching her in the head. Officers met the female and learned that her husband had allegedly grabbed her by the hair, violently shook her head, and then kicked her out of the car. T.B. was charged with simple assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in having the charge against her client completely withdrawn at the first court appearance.

R. v. B.I.G. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, May 2024]

The complainant and B.I.G. were both at the same event at a local bar. The complainant alleges that B.I.G. pushed and punched him in the face. The police did not observe any facial injuries or bandages on the complainant, but when they obtained the CCTV footage from the bar it was clear that B.I.G. had pushed the complainant. She was charged with simple assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in having the charge against her client completely withdrawn without the need to schedule this matter for trial.

R. v. M.O.– [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, July 2024]

Back in 2015, M.O. was charged with four separate sets of charges that would have to proceed to four separate drug trials. M.O. had allegedly skipped town and failed to appear on these matters. A warrant was issued for his arrest and many years passed before these matters were dealt with. In 2024 he retained Ms. Fagan to orchestrate a bail hearing. She was successful in securing his release. 

Thereafter, M.O. retained Ms. Fagan to defend his many charges.  The charges arose from a 2015 undercover investigation, where members of the Calgary Police Service, operating in an undercover capacity (“UCs”) approached a man panhandling in a mall parking lot with the intention of buying drugs. The man said he did not have any drugs, but knew a dealer who did. The man used the UCs’ phone and called this so-called drug dealer. The alleged drug dealer arrived, and the UCs purchased fentanyl. He let the UCs know they could “call him anytime”. The UCs subsequently called him no less than four more times and made numerous purchases of fentanyl. M.O. was charged with multiple counts of trafficking cocaine, along with possession of proceeds of crime, and breaching conditions of a previous bail order. 

BOTTOM LINE: Within three months of retaining Ms. Fagan, all charges against M.O. were completely withdrawn without the need to schedule a trial date.

R. v. S.R. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, February 2024]

In October of 2022, police received an anonymous Crime Stoppers tip, of unknown reliability, detailing suspected drug trafficking activity from the driver of a Tesla in the southwest of Calgary. Based on this tip, police began investigating and conducting surveillance. The police observed “over five separate drug transactions” leading them to apply for judicial authorization to search S.R.’s car and property. They conducted a traffic stop on S.R. who had 24.8 grams of cocaine in his pocket when arrested. Two cellphones were seized; one phone had three messages for customer sales of drugs. A search warrant was executed on the residence and 56.8 grams of fentanyl was found in the home along with some ecstasy.  S.R. was charged with possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA x2) and simple possession of ecstasy (section 4(1) of the CDSA). 

S.R. was an intelligent and well educated man who conducted extensive research in who to hire as his defence counsel. He chose Ms. Fagan. Ms. Fagan requested and reviewed disclosure, entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for a preliminary inquiry. At preliminary inquiry, Ms. Fagan was successful in having two of the three charges withdrawn. 

BOTTOM LINE: The Crown (very generously, given that fentanyl was involved) offered S.R. a Conditional Sentence Order (i.e. house arrest, no actual jail) in exchange for a guilty plea. S.R., to his credit, rejected the offer and trusted Ms. Fagan to finish the job. Ms. Fagan highlighted for the Crown a number of issues that it would face at trial, including what she believed to be a fatal section 10(b) Charter issue (right to counsel). After considerable back and forth, Ms. Fagan was successful in having the final charge withdrawn. S.R. walked away with no criminal record for the charges that he had hired Ms. Fagan to defend.

R. v. M.M.M. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, April 2024]

In the early morning hours residents of a quiet neighborhood awoke to shouting and the sound of the rear passenger window of an SUV shattering. M.M.M. was found nearby and arrested. He was charged with mischief (damage to property). Stakes were high for M.M.M. as he is not a Canadian citizen, and is a high-profile professional athlete. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in having the charge against M.M.M. completely withdrawn.

R. v. B.L. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, April 2024]

This was a very serious matter that read like a real-life version of “Grand Theft Auto”. B.L. had hired an initial lawyer (not Ms. Fagan) to conduct his bail hearing. That lawyer was not successful in securing B.L.’s release. He was detained by a Judge in the Alberta Court of Justice. B.L. faced thirteen charges including three counts of robbery committed with a firearm, a number of serious gun charges, and theft of a motor vehicle (sections 344(1) (a.1) x3, 86(1), 92(1), 94(1), 91(1), 333.1, 355(b) of the Criminal Code) along with some traffic offences. 

It was alleged that a member of the public was leaving a gas station at approximately 4:15 a.m. when a dark coloured pick-up truck blocked his path forward. The driver of the pick-up truck, allegedly B.L., and a female exited the truck and approached the car. B.L. was holding a shot gun. B.L. allegedly pointed the shotgun at the driver and instructed him to get out of his vehicle and give him his keys. Unfortunately, B.L. and his girlfriend did not know how to operate a manual transmission so they re-entered the truck and drove away. Approximately thirty minutes later, the two approached a woman cleaning the snow off of her Nissan and pulled up beside her. She quickly entered her vehicle and locked the doors. B.L. allegedly exited the driver’s side with a shotgun in his hand. The Nissan driver fled the scene. Approximately twenty minutes later, the pair found another Nissan occupied by a driver. B.L. and the female allegedly approached this Nissan on foot and demanded the driver exit the vehicle and pass the keys.  This driver immediately ran into his house with the keys. B.L. and the female were not successful once again. Shortly after, the truck was found abandoned in a bus trap. Calgary Police Service used K9 units to track human scent from the truck. B.L. was found in hiding in a backyard and taken into custody. In a bag nearby was a Remington 12-gauge shotgun and ammunition. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan worked with B.L.’s family to craft a robust plan of release. Ms. Fagan’s intention was to schedule a bail review in the Court of King’s Bench, but first spoke with the Crown. Ms. Fagan was able to secure B.L.’s release on bail. 

R. v. A.T. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, March 2024]

In late 2023 Calgary Police attended a YMCA for a reported assault by a staff member and the civilian using the amenities. It was alleged that A.T. had assaulted a civilian while she was swimming with her two-year-old son in the pool. A.T. suffered from significant cognitive issues and was (supposed to be) with his social caretaker at the time of the alleged incident. Inexplicably, caretaker instead decided to enjoy a hot tub and left A.T. alone. The police arrested A.T. and told him that he was now banned from all YMCA’s. This was deeply upsetting to A.T., as it was one of the few outings that he enjoyed outside of his parents home. The police alleged that he became further agitated and resisted arrest. He was charged with two counts of simple assault (s. 266 of the Criminal Code) and one count of resisting arrest (s. 129(a) of the Criminal Code). 

Ms. Fagan’s position was that given the circumstances, justice required that the charges against her client be withdrawn. Upon being retained Ms. Fagan promptly began communications with the Crown.  

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in having the charges against A.T. completely withdrawn.

R. v. P.J. – [British Columbia Provincial Court, Vancouver, March 2024]

In April 2023 members of the public reported a speeding 2020 Jeep SRT8 (a stock model of this type of vehicle boasts powerful 6.4L V8 SRT hemi engine with 475 horsepower and a 0 -100km/hr time of only 4.4 seconds) in downtown Vancouver around 2:00 a.m. City police attempted to pull the jeep over for a traffic violation but the jeep kept speeding off at a high rate of speed, running red lights and almost hitting pedestrians. A few hours later, a female called police to report her ex-boyfriend (believed to be P.J.) drank half of a bottle of wine and sped away in his fast jeep. An hour or so after the call, officers observed a Jeep matching the description parked – the driver pulled away losing police again. Police located the Jeep ten minutes later and a tow was called to seize the vehicle. P.J. was arrested shortly after and charged with dangerous driving, contrary to s. 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. Fagan promptly entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for a two-day trial. Thirty days in advance of trial, Ms. Fagan filed a detailed Charter Notice, alleging a breach of her client’s rights as guaranteed by sections 7, 8, 9 and 10(b) of the Charter. In short, P.J.’s warrantless arrest was unconstitutional (there was no positive identification of the driver), that the police conducted a search by holding up P.J.’s iPhone to his face to engage the facial recognition feature and access the contents of his phone to search for evidence (section 8), that they failed to provide him with his right to counsel immediately upon detention (section 10(b)) and that they engaged in an abuse of process when they released him from custody by driving him to a dangerous area of town and leaving him there (section 9 and section 7). 

BOTTOM LINE: After Ms. Fagan filed her detailed Charter Notice the Crown made P.J. an offer he could not refuse. P.J. entered a guilty plea to a traffic ticket for a fine of $1,000.00 and the criminal charge against him was completely withdrawn.

R. v. B.J.N. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, March 2024]

B.J.N. and her domestic partner were both drinking together one evening. One thing led to another, and she asked for “intimacy”, which was refused. The police alleged that this refusal angered B.J.N. and that she accused her partner of cheating. His response was to slap and choke her. In response, B.J.N. ran to the kitchen, grabbed a steak knife and stabbed him the arm. He left for the hospital, she called 911. B.J.N. was charged with assault with a weapon. 

BOTTOM LINE: After conversations with the Crown Ms. Fagan was successful in having the charge against B.J.N. after only two court appearances. 

R. v. Z.O. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, March 2024]

Z.O. and his wife had just recently arrived in Canada as refugees with their small infant baby. The police alleged that Z.O. got angry with his wife, grabbed her by her hair, and forced her to the ground. It was alleged that this happened twice before his wife walked to a nearby hospital where she reported the incident to staff. Z.O. was charged with s. 267(c) of the Criminal Code (assault by choking) and s. 266 of the Criminal Code (simple assault). 

BOTTOM LINE: Over the course of negotiations with the Crown, Ms.  Fagan was successful in securing a stay of proceedings (i.e. termination of the prosecution against her client. No criminal record).

R. v. M.A.P. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, April 2024]

M.A.P. had been represented by another lawyer (i.e. not Ms. Fagan) and was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to a lengthy penitentiary sentence. While M.A.P. was released on parole, intelligence was received from inside a prison about an organized crime group. A four month investigation ensued, and eventually M.A.P. was targeted and arrested. During his arrest the police searched his residence and vehicle that he was associated with. A loaded handgun was discovered in the vehicle in a hidden compartment. The police also located ballistic body armour, 49 rounds of ammunition, 10 grams of methamphetamine, 10 grams of psilocybin (mushrooms), and approximately $10,000.00 in cash. M.A.P. was charged with numerous firearms offences, drug offences and possession of proceeds of crime. Not surprisingly, his parole was collapsed and he returned to prison to serve his sentence. It was at this point that he retained Ms. Fagan, who secured his release on bail. Pleas of ‘not guilty’ were entered and the matter was scheduled for a five-day trial. Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice alleging a breach of her client’s right to counsel. A number of pre-trial conferences were held, during which Ms. Fagan repeatedly expressed the weaknesses in the Crown’s case. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in having ALL charges against M.A.P. completely withdrawn the day before trial.

R. v. A.S.S.– [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, March 2024]

A.S.S. had multiple drug convictions. In the summer of 2021 the police received confidential source information that A.S.S. was again engaging in drug trafficking. The police initiated an undercover investigation, which let them to purchase illicit marijuana and cocaine from a person believed to be A.S.S. A video was captured of the meet. The following charges were laid: selling cannabis to person over the age of 18, contrary to section 10(1)(a) of the Cannabis Act; trafficking in a controlled substance, contrary to section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and two counts of possession of proceeds of crime under $5,000.00, contrary to section 354/355 of the Criminal Code. The police did not arrest A.S.S. until the spring of 2023. During that time, and unbeknownst to him, there was a warrant outstanding for his arrest. A.S.S. hired Ms. Fagan, and she sought and reviewed disclosure, entered pleas of not guilty and scheduled the matter for trial. A.S.S. had previously been convicted of trafficking drugs to an undercover officer, and a conviction on this new set of charges would surely mean jail time. Ms. Fagan entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for one day of pre-trial applications and one day of trial. At the pre-trial application stage, Ms. Fagan filed extensive Charter materials alleging two breaches: (1) that the police violated A.S.S.’s section 11(a) Charter right to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence with which he is charged, and (2) that there was a breach of his section 11(b) right to a trial within a reasonable time. 

BOTTOM LINE: Upon receipt of Ms. Fagan’s extensive materials, the Crown entered a stay of proceedings (i.e. functionally the same as withdrawing the charges).

R. v. K.P.P. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, February 2024]

In the summer of 2022 members of the Calgary Police Service were conducting multi-target organized crime investigation. K.P.P. was not a target in that investigation, but eventually came to the attention of the police. The police began conducting surveillance on K.P which led them to believe that he may be in possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking. The police attended and conducted a “high risk traffic stop” with guns drawn, including an assault-style weapon. When the police searched K.P.P. they discovered a loaded handgun in the waistband of his sweatpants. Upon search of his residence, they located 20.6 grams of cocaine and 30.4 grams of crack. K.P.P. had a lengthy youth record for serious offences, including robbery, and was on a lifetime firearms ban as a result of an aggravated assault conviction, for which he served a significant time in jail.

K.P.P. was charged with nine separate offences (five in relation to the firearm, one for proceeds of crime, and two for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. The reality is that K.P.P. faced significant exposure if he was convicted after trial (i.e. a penitentiary sentence was inevitable). K.P.P. was clear when hiring Ms. Fagan, that he wanted to stay out of jail so that he could take care of his family and turn his life around. Ms. Fagan obtained disclosure, promptly entered pleas of not guilty and scheduled the matter for preliminary inquiry.  Over the course of lengthy and tense negotiations with the Crown, Ms. Fagan was able to broker a result that kept K.P.P. out of prison. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was able to get eight of the nine charges completely withdrawn. On the remaining count, Ms. Fagan was able to secure a Conditional Sentence Order (i.e. no incarceration).

R. v. S.D.V. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, January 2024]

This case involves a firearm at an airport. During a routine scan of passenger bags prior to a flight, airport authorities located a firearm in the domestic terminal luggage search area at the Calgary International Airport. It was determined that it was a loaded Glock 9mm. The name on the bag was that of S.D.V.. The police got on the flight and arrested S.D.V. who was already seated for take off. The police conducted an interview (without advising him of his right to counsel first).  S.D.V. was charged with four firearm offences. S.D.V. retained Ms. Fagan, who promptly requested and reviewed disclosure, including body worn camera footage which revealed a number of breaches of her client’s Charter rights.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in getting all charges against her client withdrawn, without the need to schedule the matter for trial.