kaysifagan_logo2

Menu

2026

R. v. D.J.K. [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, August 2026]

D.J.K. had been romantically involved with a woman who alleged that he had repeatedly communicated with her against her will and that she reasonably feared for her safety. The police seized records of several hundred text and email communications which allegedly were sent by D.J.K. over a one-week period, and D.J.K. was charged with criminal harassment contrary to section 264(2)(b) of the Criminal Code. D.J.K. hired Ms. Fagan who immediately sought disclosure, entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for a 2-day trial. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was ultimately able to secure the withdrawal of the charge against D.J.K. prior to trial.

R. v. P.J.H. [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, August 2026]

P.J.H. was charged with criminal harassment contrary to section 264(2)(b) of the Criminal Code. His former domestic partner alleged that he had repeatedly communicated with her and that she reasonably feared for her safety, or for that of her child. Police arrested P.J.H., and obtained a search warrant to search and seize electronic devices from his residence. They ultimately seized a cell phone they believed belonged to him. P.J.H. retained Ms. Fagan who obtained disclosure and initiated conversations with the Crown’s office in an effort to avoid a trial and secure the withdrawal of the charge against P.J.H. The Crown was not receptive to this approach, and so a trial date was scheduled. At trial, the complainant took the stand and testified to her lengthy history with P.J.H. and the so-called harassing communications that he had initiated. After the complainant’s testimony was received under oath, but prior to cross-examination, Ms. Fagan revealed to the Crown a number of video clips which tended to undermine the credibility of the complainant. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was ultimately able to secure a stay of proceedings on all charges following the first day of trial (effectively, all charges are withdrawn and there is no criminal record entered).

R. v. M.A.A.—[Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, June 2026]

M.A.A. had initially retained a different lawyer who had already conducted the first day of trial. At the conclusion of that first day of trial, M.A.A. decided to retain alternate counsel: Ms. Fagan. 

In April 2025, M.A.A. was pulled over by members of the Calgary Police Service because he was operating a vehicle with a missing mud flap, contrary to Alberta’s Vehicle Equipment Regulation. The police approached his vehicle and asked for the usual documentation. M.A.A. provided registration, insurance, and a driver’s license which the police believed belonged to someone else. The policed asked M.A.A. if the driver’s license was his, and he conceded that it was not. The police gave M.A.A. a chance to search for his driver’s license on his phone, during which they engaged him in a “Q&A” session. Ultimately, the police asked M.A.A. to exit his vehicle, and in doing so opened the door and left it open as M.A.A. was searched and put in the back of the police vehicle. Once secured, the police returned to M.A.A.’s truck and conducted a warrantless search discovering a brick of cocaine, pharmaceutical drugs, a hatchet, cash, and what they believed to be drug paraphernalia. He ultimately was charged with 10 criminal offences, including possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, proceeds of crime and obstruction of justice. 

While it is atypical of Ms. Fagan to come on record midway through a trial, she agreed to do so, requested disclosure and ordered trial transcripts. It appeared that an additional 2 days of trial would be required. Upon receipt and review of the file in its entirety Ms. Fagan broke the police interactions with M.A.A. down minute-by-minute and highlighted a number of serious Charter breaches, including unlawful searches and seizures (section 8 of the Charter), unlawful detention (section 9 of the Charter) and multiple breaches of M.A.A’s right to counsel (section 10(b) of the Charter). Once she was acquainted with the file at a granular level, Ms. Fagan reached out to the Crown Prosecutor to discuss the shortcomings in the police investigation. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was ultimately able to secure a stay of proceedings on all charges (effectively, all charges are withdrawn and there is no criminal record entered) without the need for further trial dates to be scheduled. The time between Ms. Fagan going on record and terminating the prosecution against M.A.A. was approximately 8 weeks.

R. v. B.I.L. [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, June 2026]

A member of the Calgary Police Service was operating an unmarked police vehicle on Stoney Trail when he observed a Lexus SUV travelling over 160km/hr in a posted 100 km/ hr area.  The officer initiated a traffic stop and the Lexus pulled to the side of the road. As he approached the Lexus, it mounted the curb and took off at a high rate of speed. The incident was broadcast on the police radio and over the course of the next 2 hours multiple officers observed the vehicle and attempted, without luck, to pull it over. The license plate of the Lexus came back to a person related to B.I.L. and the police ultimately conducted cover surveillance on the residence associated to the Lexus. They eventually observed B.I.L. leave the residence with an elderly man, and attend at a registry. B.I.L. was apparently then seen exiting the registry with a license plate, removing the plate on the Lexus, and replacing it with the one he had newly obtained. The police sought and received a “Feeney Warrant”, which allowed them to enter B.I.L.’s residence to arrest him. After multiple commands from heavily armed TAC officers, B.I.L. exited the residence and was arrested. B.I.L. was charged with three counts of dangerous driving (s. 320.13 of the Criminal Code) and four counts of flight from police (s. 320.17 of the Criminal Code) 

B.I.L. retained Ms. Fagan who attempted to obtain full disclosure. Ms. Fagan entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for a 3 day trial. A month before trial, Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice alleging a breach of her client’s right to a fair trial and his right to make full answer and defence. It was Ms. Fagan’s position that even after repeated written requests, the police had failed to disclose a number of critical items including the arrest warrant, media footage, and copies of the radio communications between officers and dispatch. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was ultimately able to secure a stay of proceedings on all charges prior to trial (effectively, all charges are withdrawn and there is no criminal record entered). 

R. v. C.D.X.—[Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, June 2026]

This was one of the larger drug seizures made in the city this year. Calgary Police Service Drug Undercover Street Team was conducting regular patrols in the city’s northwest. An intoxicated male approached them and asked if they were “his guys”. The male, realizing that the police were not his guys, departed the scene. He was observed getting into the back of a black Jeep. The police conducted computer checks on the Jeep and discovered that it belonged to J.J.. An undercover surveillance investigation was initiated. J.J. was seen accessing a business in the city’s northeast before and after engaging in meets of short duration, which were believed to be drug transactions. The police sought a search warrant for the business, which was owned and operated by C.D.X.. Within the business the police located the following:

  • 3 firearms 
  • >$7000 cash 
  • Almost 200g of fentanyl (valued at approximately $10,000)
  • Nearly a kilogram of illicit marijuana  (value of over $100,000) 
  • 1.7 kilograms of cocaine  (valued at approximately $170,000) 
  • More than 5.5 kilograms of psilocybin (valued at over $110,000.00) 
  • Illegal cigarettes 

C.D.X. was charged with 15 different offences, including three counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking and nine firearm charges. The amount of fentanyl seized alone could net, on conviction, a double digit jail sentence. C.D.X. immediately retained Ms. Fagan who sought and reviewed disclosure, entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for a 5 day trial. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was ultimately able to secure a stay of proceedings on all charges prior to trial (effectively, all charges are withdrawn and there is no criminal record entered). C.D.X. never had to step foot in the courtroom.

R. v. T.T.N. — [The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, Red Deer, April 2026]

This was a complex multi-year investigation involving RCMP detachments from both Newfoundland and Alberta. In January, 2022, an RCMP Detachment in Newfoundland received a complaint that a 14-year-old girl was sending nude photographs and videos of herself to an unknown person on Snapchat in exchange for money. The investigation began after the girl’s mother noticed suspicious e-transfer deposits in her daughter’s bank account. The RCMP initiated an investigation, sought production orders, and traced the e-transfers to a bank account bearing T.T.N.’s name in a town in rural Alberta. T.T.N. was arrested in the summer of 2024 after he was asked by the police to attend a local detachment. He was interviewed for several hours and eventually provided an inculpatory statement. He was ultimately charged with section 172(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (in colloquial terms “luring” – that he was communicating with a person under the age of 18, or believed to be under the age of 18 for a sexual purpose) and section 163.1(2) (make, print, publish or possess child pornography). 

T.T.N. retained Ms. Fagan who elected to have a trial by way of Justice and Jury, in the Court of King’s Bench. Two days of Pre-Trial applications, and a 10 day Jury trial was scheduled. Ms. Fagan alleged a number of Charter breaches, including an argument related to disclosure (section 7 and 11(d) of the Charter) and pre-charge delay (section 7 of the Charter).

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was ultimately able to secure the withdrawal of all charges against T.T.N. on the second day scheduled for Pre-Trial applications. 

R. v. B.A.B.—[Alberta Court of Justice, Lethbridge, April 2026]

In March, 2025 the Lethbridge Police Service received confidential source information that B.A.B. had been engaged in drug trafficking activities. The police initiated covert surveillance and determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe that B.A.B. was trafficking drugs. They sought a search warrant under section 11 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and ultimately executed the search warrant on the residence believed to be occupied by B.A.B. Police located the following:

  • Over 3.6 kilograms of cocaine
  • Over 1.6 kilograms of methamphetamine
  • Half a kilogram of psilocybin 
  • ~50 grams of ketamine
  • Over $16,000 in cash 

B.A.B. was charged with four counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking (each punishable by up to life in prison); one count of proceeds; two counts of defrauding the government and charges under the Tobacco Excise Act and Cannabis Act. B.A.B. was arrested, along with his girlfriend and brought to the police station to be processed and interviewed. During the course of his interview he offered up a full confession, which included what could easily be construed as an admission to importation of cocaine. The purpose of his confession was to absolve his girlfriend of any criminal wrongdoing. Chivalry is not dead. 

B.A.B. retained Ms. Fagan who requested and reviewed disclosure. It appeared that there were a number of Charter arguments to be made in relation to the validity of the search warrant. Given the sheer amount of drugs seized and the full confession – the hill to climb was extremely steep and the stakes were extremely high. B.A.B. was clear that his one goal was to avoid going to jail. With this goal in mind, Ms. Fagan had a number of candid conversations with the assigned Crown Prosecutor. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was able to secure a Conditional Sentence Order (i.e. no time in a jail). At sentencing it was remarked in open court that there were no reported decisions where a person caught with this amount of drugs managed to avoid going to jail. With Ms. Fagan’s help, B.A.B. did. All charges against his girlfriend were also withdrawn.

R. v. S.B.M.— [Alberta Court of Justice, Drumheller, March 2026]

A report was made to the RCMP that a child had been assaulted by a family member, believed to be S.B.M. The child alleged that he had been pushed to the ground twice. S.B.M. was arrested and charged with assault, contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code. S.B.M.  previously had retained another lawyer, and the matter had dragged on for over a year without the result S.B.M. had hoped for. He eventually transferred his matter to Ms. Fagan, who immediately sought disclosure and began initiating contact with the assigned Crown Prosecutor. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was able to secure the withdrawal of the charge.

R. v. T.K.J.—[Alberta Court of Justice, Red Deer, March 2026]

In the early morning of December, 2023, Blackfalds RCMP received several reports of a hit-and-run collision in a residential area. Witnesses reported that a large truck struck a parked vehicle so hard that it was pushed down the street. The truck was then alleged to have hit a female pedestrian before fleeing westbound. An officer located the damaged truck nearby and attempted a traffic stop. The driver, alleged to be T.K.J., continued travelling for a short distance before stopping in a parking lot. Police arrested T.K.J. after he allegedly resisted officers’ efforts to remove him from the truck. Officers observed that T.K.J.’s eyes were red, his speech was slurred and he smelled of alcohol. T.K.J. allegedly failed to provide a breath sample, and he was ultimately charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle, failure or refusal to comply with a breath demand, failure to stop after an accident and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. 

After originally hiring a different lawyer, T.K.J. eventually retained Ms. Fagan who entered pleas of ‘not guilty’, scheduled the matter for a 2 day trial. One month before trial Ms. Fagan gave notice of her intention to call an expert witness at trial, and filed an extensive Charter notice alleging the following breaches:

  1. T.K.J.’s warrantless arrest without reasonable grounds was a violation of section 9 of the Charter; 
  2. The police did not have the requisite reasonable grounds to demand a sample of T.K.J.’s breath, in violation of 8 of the Charter;
  3. The police did not make the breath demand “as soon as practicable” as required, resulting in a section 8 Charter violation; 
  4. The delay in implementing T.K.J.’s access to counsel was a violation of section 10(b) of the Charter;
  5. The police failed to provide T.K.J. with a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel at the police detachment in violation of section 10(b) of the Charter;
  6. The use of force by the and their failure to provide medical attention was a violation of section 7 of the Charter; and
  7. T.K.J.’s continued detention overnight at the police detachment for ~ 8 hours was a violation of section 9 and 11(e) of the Charter.  

BOTTOM LINE: Ultimately all criminal charges against T.K.J. were withdrawn on the first day of trial.