2025
R. v. G.M.M. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, September 2025]
G.M.M. was an elderly man charged with very serious fraud allegations involving a breach of trust. It was alleged that during his time employed with a teacher’s association that he forged an employment contract and claimed overtime pay that he was not entitled to. The investigation was a lengthy one, starting in 2021. Investigators seized and forensically analyzed several computer hard drives, thousands of documents were processed, dozens of interviews were conducted, production orders for bank accounts were sought and granted, and bank documents were seized and analyzed. At the conclusion of the investigation it was determined that G.G.M. should be charged, and the police arrested him in 2024 for theft over $5,000 contrary to section 334 of the Criminal Code, fraud over $5,000 contrary to section 380 of the Criminal Code, and acting on a forged document, contrary to section 368 of the Criminal Code. The weight of legal precedent was such that if convicted, G.M.M. faced a period of incarceration. He retained Ms. Fagan to defend this complex and serious prosecution. Ms. Fagan entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for a 5 day trial in the Alberta Court of Justice.
Multiple days of pre-trial applications were held in this case over several months. There was significant delay between the start of the investigation and when the police ultimately laid charges. During this time G.M.M. suffered from an illness which compromised his memory. Ms. Fagan brought an application for a judicial stay of proceedings (i.e. the ending of the prosecution) as a consequence of the violation of her client’s right to a fair trial, and to make full answer and defence (section 7 and 11(d) of the Charter). The Court denied this application.
There was a significant delay between the date the charges were laid and the date the trial was scheduled for. Ms. Fagan brought an application for a judicial stay of proceedings (i.e. the ending of the prosecution) as a consequence of the violation of her client’s right to a trial within a reasonable time (section 11(b) of the Charter). It was denied.
Finally, Ms. Fagan brought an application for disclosure. The Crown has an obligation to provide all of the fruits of their investigation. The Crown took the position that it had provided the defence with everything. Ms. Fagan argued that it had not and was not only asking for the disclosure to be provided, but for the Court to impose costs against the Crown (i.e. the Crown would have to pay for some (or all) of the legal fees incurred by G.G.M. because of its failure to provide full disclosure). During the course of Ms. Fagan’s submissions during a heated hearing days before the trial was scheduled to commence, the Crown entered a stay of proceedings (i.e. the prosecution against G.M.M. was terminated.
BOTTOM LINE: After years of defending this matter, and after multiple pre-trial applications, Ms. Fagan was able to secure a stay of proceedings (i.e. the prosecution against G.G.M. was terminated). No criminal record was incurred for these most serious charges.
R. v. O.S.E. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, September 2025]
The police arrested O.S.E. for assault with a weapon and possession of weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. It was alleged that late one night O.S.E. got in a verbal disagreement with a stranger in a parking lot outside a cannabis dispensary. This led (according to the complainant) to O.S.E. discharging a can of bear spray on him and fleeing the scene in his vehicle. CCTV footage of the incident was obtained, and the police traced the license plate on the vehicle to its registered owner O.S.E.. Unsure as to whether the registered owner was actually operating the vehicle at the time of the event, the police compiled a photo lineup. The complainant was able to identify O.S.E as the person who discharged the bear spray, and the police issued a warrant for his arrest. O.S.E. retained Ms. Fagan, who obtained disclosure, entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for trial.
BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was able to get all charges against her client withdrawn.
R. v. J.J.G. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, July 2025]
The Calgary Police Service responded to a call for service from a distressed woman alleging that her husband had violently assaulted her. When the police arrived they noted that she had blood on her head, red dots on neck and bruising under eye. She said her and her baby were sleeping when he stepped on the bed and started strangling her and threatening to kill her. She went to hospital with EMS and J.J.G. was arrested and charged with assault by choking (section 267 of the Criminal Code) and uttering threats (section 264.1 of the Criminal Code). J.J.G. previously served in the Canadian Armed Forces and suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He shared with Ms. Fagan the circumstances of what had occurred – it appeared that he had had an adverse reaction to medication that had been prescribed to him before the alleged assault.
BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was able to get all charges against her client withdrawn.
R. v. P.I.B. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, July 2025]
Police were conducting “routine patrols” in the northeast quadrant of the city when they observed a luxury SUV make a sharp turn without yielding to the police cruiser. The SUV pulled into a driveway and police initiated a traffic stop. Members approached the vehicle and observed P.I.B. as the sole occupant and say that they observed cannabis pens/paraphernalia in the middle console. They asked P.I.B. for his documents, advised why he was initially stopped and also notified him that his vehicle would be subject to a GLCA search due to the visible cannabis products in plain view. It is alleged that P.I.B. rolled up his window, locked the doors, and proceeded to reverse out of the driveway, nearly striking the officers. The SUV maneuvered around the parked police cruiser and fled from the traffic stop. Police followed behind and allegedly watched P.I.B. reverse into a garage and close the door. Police contained the entire residence for fifty minutes calling P.I.B on his cellphone. At the time of his arrest, P.I.B. was bound by release order conditions on a separate matter which prohibited him from driving without a valid driver’s licence, registration and insurance for the vehicle. He was charged flight from a police officer (s. 320.17 of the Criminal Code) and failing to comply with his bail conditions. He hired Ms. Fagan who was concerned about the validity of the initial traffic stop, and began requesting various disclosure that would show what actually happened – such as in car audiovisual recordings, body worn camera footage, and officer audio communications.
BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan succeeded in having all charges withdrawn.
R. v. V.T.W. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, June 2025]
It was alleged that in late July 2024 V.T.W. caused a collision downtown and then fled the scene. Two witnesses claimed that she ran into a local restaurant and they confronted her about their suspicions of her driving while impaired. Officers were called and attended the restaurant, they immediately placed V.T.W. under arrest for driving while impaired. While being escorted out the police say that V.T.W. became “argumentative” and lost her balance while walking in 4-inch high heels with her hands behind her back. The officer who was escorting alleged that she attempted to side kick him and conducted “a controlled take down” landing on top of her in the middle of the street. V.W.T. was charged with assaulting a police officer. V.T.W. retained Ms. Fagan who secured and reviewed disclosure. Body worn camera footage was provided to Ms. Fagan after multiple requests over several months. On review, she contacted the Crown and highlighted the very violent takedown of a petite woman by a large male officer.
BOTTOM LINE: The charge against V.T.W. was withdrawn.
R. v. Y.S.P. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Didsbury, June 2025]
Didsbury RCMP received a complaint that Y.S.P. had been physically and mentally abusing his girlfriend for the past year. RCMP contacted the complainant and asked her to come to the detachment to provide a statement. She alleged that Y.S.P. had slammed her against the kitchen counter multiple times, choked her, hit her across the face while she was sleeping and head butted her. Y.S.P. denied these allegations, and provided compelling evidence that his girlfriend was in fact the physical aggressor.
BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was able to have the charges completely withdrawn within 90 days of being retained.
R. v. F.C.M. x2 – [Alberta Court of Justice, Medicine Hat, May 2025]
F.C.M. was attending post-secondary school in Medicine Hat. Two women alleged that on separate nights, and in different locations, F.C.M. had sexually assaulted them during a “Netflix and chill” night in a dorm room. Several weeks after the alleged incidents, the two women got together, discussed their experiences, and decided to report F.C.M. to the police. F.C.M. was unaware that warrants for his arrest had been issued, and several months passed between the reporting of the allegations and when he accidentally discovered them. He hired Ms. Fagan from the outset to deal with orchestrating an arrest by appointment, and thereafter for two separate trials. Close to the first trial date, the Crown notified Ms. Fagan that an application for “joinder” and “similar fact evidence” would be brought. In simple terms, this meant that the Crown wanted one trial to cover both sets of allegations, and that they were seeking a ruling that evidence of one alleged sexual assault was admissible against F.C.M. on the other (this was obviously undesirable from a defence perspective). Ms. Fagan attended in Medicine Hat and argued against the Crown’s proposed change. Following submissions to the Judge in Medicine Hat, Ms. Fagan discussed with the Crown the very real concern of collusion between the two women, along with other issues with the Crown’s case. Neither matter proceeded to trial.
BOTTOM LINE: Both sexual assault charges against F.C.M. were withdrawn.
R. v. W.J.K. [Provincial Court of Saskatchewan, Moose Jaw, May 2025]
This was a youth matter involving an allegation of sexual assault. W.J.K. and his friends were athletes who met up at the mall with some girls that they had met online. After spending some time together at the mall, one of the girls invited the boys back to her house. The group was hanging out in the girl’s bedroom where it was alleged that W.J.K. attempted to touch one of the girls in a sexual manner. W.J.K. hired Ms. Fagan who immediately requested disclosure and reached out to the Crown to have the charge withdrawn.
BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was able to convince the Crown to refer this matter Extrajudicial Sanctions (EJS) Program, meaning that the charge was ultimately withdrawn. EJS is very rarely permitted when the charge is sexual assault.
R. v. K.K.S. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, April 2025]
In the summer of 2022, the Calgary Police Service received a Crime Stoppers tip that K.K.S. was selling prescription medication at a local lounge. An investigation was initiated and undercover police officers made a total of 4 purchases of cocaine from her, including an ounce level purchase. K.K.S. was charged with 4 counts of trafficking cocaine, contrary to section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (punishable by up to life in prison) and 4 counts of possession of proceeds of crime (contrary to section 355 of the Criminal Code). K.K.S. hired Ms. Fagan and emphasized that she was a single parent; her priority was to stay out of jail and to avoid the entry of a drug record, which would prevent her from travelling to the U.S.A..
Ms. Fagan obtained disclosure and made the determination that this was an very difficult case to win from a defence perspective. Why? Because they are easy to prove from a Crown perspective. All the Crown needs to do is call the police officer who purchased the drugs to testify, and then that officer simply identifies the person who sold them drugs. Where there were multiple purchases, as there were here, identification is simple. The Crown does not even need to prove that cocaine was trafficked, just that a substance that was held out to be cocaine was trafficked. The Crown initially made K.K.S. an offer that would keep her out of jail, but that would put her on house arrest and would result in a drug record. After significant consideration K.K.S. courageously instructed Ms. Fagan to reject the offer and schedule the matter for trial. Ms. Fagan entered pleas of not guilty and scheduled the matter for a 4 day trial. A Charter notice was filed alleging that the police had entrapped K.K.S.. Upon receipt of the Charter notice the Crown initiated resolution discussions, which resulted in all drug charges being withdrawn.
BOTTOM LINE: K.K.S. entered a plea to the summary conviction offence of possession of proceeds of crime and received 6 months of conditions, no jail. Three of the four proceeds of crime charges were withdrawn, as were all of the drug charges.
R. v. C.N.K.—[Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, April 2025]
C.N.K. was in an “on again, off again” relationship with the complainant beginning in early 2020. C.N.K.’s ex-girlfriend alleges that he repeatedly communicated with her and stalked her through several countries where she visited and resided. She had made a number of calls to police to report that he was harassing her and following her and eventually the police charged C.N.K. with two counts of criminal harassment. In an effort to save her client time and money, Ms. Fagan endeavored to resolve the matter in a manner that would avoid the entry of a criminal record prior to scheduling the matter for trial. The Crown’s position was that a criminal record was appropriate. Pursuant to C.N.K.’s clear instructions, Ms. Fagan entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for a two-day trial.
BOTTOM LINE: On the eve of trial, Ms. Fagan successfully negotiated with the Crown to withdraw all charges against C.N.K.
R. v. D.R.E.—[Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, March 2025]
In 2022, the Calgary Police Services, Organized Crime Enforcement Team (“OCET”) was engaged in a ‘project-level’ investigation into shootings involving the Middle Eastern Community. During the course of surveillance, D.R.E. was observed purchasing ammunition for another police target. The police continued to investigate D.R.E. and eventually sought and executed a search warrant for the home and vehicle he had been seen accessing. Within the home the police found multiple firearms.
Police conducted a traffic stop to arrest D.R.E for possession of a weapon in an unauthorized place and trafficking ammunition. His vehicle was towed and a search was conducted, inside officers found 2 phones. A void was located behind the media buttons in the center dash which was easily removable. Within this void, officers found a stolen loaded 9mm handgun with the serial number scratched off, and 45 individually pre-packaged bags of cocaine (both powder and crack). D.R.E. was charged with two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and 9 serious firearm offences.
D.R.E. had initially retained another lawyer, and the Crown had made him an offer of a 4 year jail sentence. D.R.E. sought his lawyer’s advice with respect to who to hire for the trial of this matter. His only goal was to avoid going to jail. On that lawyer’s recommendation, D.R.E. hired Ms. Fagan who promptly requested disclosure and began taking apart the file. Over the course of several months, Ms. Fagan was successful in identifying numerous issues which could be fatal to the prosecution which she shared with the Crown in an effort to keep D.R.E. out of jail.
BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in keeping D.R.E. out of jail.
R. v. J.R.B.—[Alberta Court of Justice, Airdrie, March 2025]
In December 2024 RCMP were called and attended urgent care. A 14 year old boy said that was he was forced out of class and off school property by five other kids under threats of violence. The youth said that he believes he saw the butt of a pistol but was unsure. The five boys threatened to kill him if he did not comply, he complied. He was told to remove his backpack, pants and earbuds. Two of the five boys made him lick the bottom of his shoe and then spit on him. Residential CCTV captured him getting punched in the face and kicked in the stomach. G.M.R. was charged along with several other young boys with the very serious offence of robbery (s. 344 of the Criminal Code), aggravated assault (s. 268(2) Criminal Code), and uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm (s. 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code). He retained Ms. Fagan. G.M.R. denied any wrongdoing, and over the course of several weeks Ms. Fagan gathered the evidence and disclosure which showed that her client was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time, and that he was entirely innocent.
BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in having all charges against G.M.R. completely withdrawn.
R. v. J.R.B.—[Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, March 2025]
J.R.B. and his wife were going through an acrimonious separation. J.R.B.’s wife alleged that she had received incessant phone calls from him, culminating in him saying that he was going to shoot her in the head. He attended her residence after, and she called the police. When the police arrived they were advised that J.R.B. owned firearms. They entered the residence and seized a number of guns. J.R.B. was arrested for uttering threats and unsafe storage of his firearms. The Crown’s position was: plead guilty and do a short, sharp period in jail. J.R.B. retained Ms. Fagan who entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for trial. Ms. Fagan alerted the Crown to a number of Charter issues – including the problems with the entry by the police into the home.
BOTTOM LINE: Prior to scheduling this matter for trial, Ms. Fagan was able to successfully secure a withdrawal of the firearms charge entirely. Leaving only one single count of uttering threats standing. Ms. Fagan was further successful in having the remaining charge completely withdrawn.
R. v. Z.R.D.—[Alberta Court of Justice, Drayton Valley, March 2025]
Z.R.D. and his wife were driving in rural Alberta when they came upon wildlife. Z.R.D. grabbed his rifle and was looking at the moose through the scope. His wife said something to him in an argumentative fashion, and his response to query why she would say something like that when he was holding a gun. She alleged that he pushed her back and she fell on the gravel road. It was further alleged that Z.R.D. made threats to the effect that he would harm her, that she would never wake up, and that no one would be able to find her body. Z.R.D. was arrested under the Mental Health Act, and while in hospital it was determined that he was suffering from an undiagnosed mental illness.
BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan ultimately succeeding in having all charges withdrawn.