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able to secure a stay of proceedings on all charges following the first day of trial (effectively, all charges are withdrawn and there is no criminal record entered).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

R. v. H.G.G.—[Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, December 2025] 

In January, 2025 a member of the Calgary Police Service saw a vehicle driving at what he believed was a high rate of speed. The officer initiated a traffic stop and asked the driver, H.G.G. to provide his documentation. While H.G.G. searched for his documentation the officer noticed a black handle concealed between the driver’s seat and the center console. The police asked H.G.G. what it was, and H.G.G. replied that it was a tomahawk.  Due to perceived concealment of the hatchet, the police placed H.G.G. under arrest for possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. Importantly, this arrest gave the police the ability to search the vehicle. H.G.G. was removed from the vehicle, handcuffed and put in the back of the police cruiser while the police searched the vehicle. Police located: 8 bags of powder cocaine, 5 bags of crack cocaine, a bag of psilocybin (“magic mushrooms”), cash, 2 cell phones and an imitation firearm. H.G.G. was charged with carrying a concealed weapon (section 90 of the Criminal Code), two counts of section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and possession of psilocybin. H.G.G. retained Ms. Fagan who requested and reviewed disclosure. Ms. Fagan was very interested in the grounds for the initial stop and repeatedly requested body worn camera footage and in-car audiovisual footage. When that disclosure was not forthcoming, Ms. Fagan entered an election of “Alberta Court of Justice”, pleas of “not guilty’ and endeavored to schedule the matter for trial, and ultimately, a disclosure hearing. The Crown ostensibly (and fairly) conceded that here were issues with the file and agreed with Ms. Fagan that the matter should be withdrawn. 

BOTTOM LINE: All charges against H.G.G. were completely withdrawn.

R. v. G.A.H.— [Alberta Court of Justice, Grande Prairie, December, 2025]

G.A.H. was charged with assaulting a taxi cab driver. In short, the Crown alleged that while intoxicated and a customer in a taxi, G.Y.H. attacked the driver while uttering a number of racially charged comments. The police were called and obtained in-car video footage which captured the entire (unprovoked) assault. From a defence perspective, the concerns on this file were threefold: (1) the alleged offence was captured on video; (2) courts have repeatedly said that there is “need to protect taxi drivers in the performance of a public service” and (3) the fact that racially charged insults accompanied the alleged assault meant that (if convicted) s. 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code would be engaged, that is that it is an aggravating factor on sentence that must be taken into account. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan ultimately succeeded in having the charge against G.A.H. withdrawn.

R. v. D.O.D.—[Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, November 2025] 

D.O.D. and his girlfriend had an altercation which was alleged to have turned violent. The police charged D.O.D. with two counts of assault by choking. D.O.D. was contacted several days later and asked by the police to attend for an arrest by appointment. He did so, and was transported to the Arrest Processing Section. D.O.D. (a successful businessman) was sober, cooperative, had no criminal record or history of violence, and identified himself with photo ID on arrest. With high professional stakes, he retained Ms. Fagan to defend him. Ms. Fagan took issue with her client’s transport to the Arrest Processing Section, and his holding there for nearly 12 hours. While he was there he was forced to remove his clothes and wear a “hazmat” suit. There was no lawful basis for D.O.D.’s detention, and Ms. Fagan’s position was that he ought to have been released on scene by the arresting officer. Ms. Fagan entered ‘not guilty’ pleas and scheduled the matter for a two day trial. Several months in advance of trial, Ms. Fagan filed extensive written materials and brought a disclosure application for the police to produce their policy on the arrest of persons charged with “domestic violence”. A policy was ultimately produced. A further Charter notice was filed in advance of trial alleging that the police breached D.O.D.’s right to be free from arbitrary detention (section 9), his right to counsel (section 10(b)), that the removal of his clothing constituted a violation of his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and that the police policy was an abuse of process (a violation of section 7 of the Charter). The trial did not proceed. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan ultimately succeeded in having all charges against D.O.D. withdrawn.

R. v. B.R.S..—[Alberta Court of Justice, Medicine Hat, November 2025] 

B.R.S. and the complainant had been married for several years. The complainant suffered from severe addiction and mental health issues. Following the dissolution of the marriage, the complainant made a number of allegations against B.R.S. alleging various modes of abuse over 5 years. B.R.S. was charged with assault and immediately retained Ms. Fagan to defend him. Ms. Fagan requested and reviewed disclosure, entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for trial. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan ultimately succeeded in having all charges against B.R.S. withdrawn.

R. v. K.P.H. — [Alberta Court of Justice, Diamond Valley, November 2025]

K.P.H. retained Ms. Fagan to defend two charges: assault with a weapon (s. 267(a)) and an assault by choking/ strangulation (s. 267(c)). In the summer of 2025 the police were called to a rural property where they observed a home in a state of disarray. Multiple witnesses provided consistent accounts of what had happened, pointing to K.PH. as the aggressor. In short, K.P.H. was alleged to have engaged in a heated argument that eventually became physical. Police observed injuries on the complainant consistent with what the witnesses had said had occurred. K.P.H. was arrested, handcuffed and ultimately charged. After several months of back and forth with the Crown’s office, Ms. Fagan was successful in securing the withdrawal of all charges against K.P.H. without the need to go to trial. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan ultimately succeeded in having all charges against K.P.H. withdrawn.

R. v. L.T.B.—[Alberta Court of Justice (Youth Division), Calgary, October 2025] 

L.T.B. attended a party during his grade 12 year of high school. While at that party, it was alleged that he kissed a girl without her consent. The boyfriend of that girl threatened to do harm to L.T.B. as a consequence of the allegations made by his girlfriend. One day while at school L.T.B. was attacked. As a result, he discharged bear spray in the hallway of his high school. Both alleged incidents were captured on film. The police were called to the high school and they ultimately laid a sexual assault charge (s. 271 of the Criminal Code) and assault with a weapon (s. 267(a) of the Criminal Code). L.T.B. retained Ms. Fagan who initially attempted to resolve this matter with the Crown without the need to proceed to trial. The Crown was unwilling at that time to provide a palatable outcome, and so a two day trial was scheduled. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan ultimately succeeded in having all charges against L.T.B. withdrawn.

R. v. J.S.Z. — [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, October 2025] 

J.S.Z. was charged with a number of serious allegations stemming from a prior romantic relationship. The complainant alleged a number of violent episodes over several years including assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and strangulation/suffocation. This was the third set of allegations that the complainant had made, and that Ms. Fagan had been hired to defend. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was able to secure the withdrawal of all charges against J.S.Z. without proceeding to trial. This was the third set of allegations that Ms. Fagan had successfully defended for J.S.Z. involving the same complainant. No criminal record was incurred by J.S.Z. on any of the matters that he hired Ms. Fagan to defend.

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.

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.

R. v. C.A.F. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, December 2023]

C.A.F. was the coach of his son’s sports team. It was alleged that during the course of a heated match, that C.A.F. struck a young spectator who had been hanging around his team’s bench. This event was alleged to have taken place mid-game, with parents and other spectators present. There were no corroborating statements from any witnesseses. C.A.F was charged with assault, contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code. He hired Ms. Fagan to defend him. Ms. Fagan obtained and reviewed disclosure, and spoke with a number of people who were present that day who indicated that they witnessed nothing untoward. After discussions with the Crown Prosecutor, Ms. Fagan advised C.A.F. that a “conditional discharge” was on the table as an offer … meaning that in exchange for admitting guilt, and complying with conditions that the charge against him would be withdrawn. C.A.F., in consultation with Ms. Fagan, rejected the Crown offer and scheduled the matter for trial. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in securing the outright withdrawal of the charge against her client when she attended for trial (without any entry of a guilty plea).

R. v. M.W.T. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Drumheller, December 2023]

An elderly male called the RCMP and reported issues with his neighbor down the street. He alleged that M.W.T. (a senior citizen) and yelled at the complainant (also a senior citizen), told him that he could not drive his mobility scooter on the road and accused him of being a paedophile. For whatever reason, the police decided that these circumstances amounted to a criminal offence. M.W.T. was charged with criminal harassment under s. 264 of the Criminal Code, which reads as follows: 

264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred […] that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

BOTTOM LINE: M.W.T. retained Ms. Fagan. Within weeks of receiving and reviewing disclosure Ms. Fagan successful secured the withdrawal of the charge against her client.

R. v. K.S.A. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Cochrane, November 2023]

K.S.A. was in a public land use area west of Cochrane enjoying the outdoors with some friends. Two conservation officers drove by the group from distance and say that they observed a black male in a stance specific to holding a handgun. The conversation officers detained the group of people, conducted a number of searches and interrogated the group about a handgun. They ultimately found a handgun under a truck parked at the scene. K.S.A. was charged with a number of firearm offences in relation to the handgun, including the most serious charge, s. 95(1) (possession of a loaded firearm), which typically attracts a significant federal penitentiary sentence on conviction. Additionally, K.S.A. was charged with careless storage of a firearm (s. 86(1) of the Criminal Code); and two counts of possession of a firearm without a license (s. 91(2) of the Criminal Code). K.S.A hired Ms. Fagan to defend him shortly after his release on bail. The Crown pre-trial offer was for 2 years imprisonment on a guilty plea. K.S.A. and Ms. Fagan promptly rejected the offer, entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for trial. Prior to trial Ms. Fagan filed a complex Charter application, alerting the Crown to the cascade of Charter breaches that had befallen K.S.A at the hands of the conservation officers, and later the police. The Crown took a different perspective, and emphasized the seriousness of possessing a handgun. The matter proceeded to trial.

BOTTOM LINE: Midway through trial proceedings, the Crown withdrew all charges against K.S.A..

R. v. D.D.D.V. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, October 2023]

D.D.D.V. was an accomplished and up and coming businessman. He was charged by the police after his former romantic partner alleged that he had threatened and assaulted her. He faced one count of uttering threats, contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and two counts of assault, contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code. D.D.D.V. denied the allegations, and because of his profession, emphasized to Ms. Fagan how critical it was that his matter be taken care of both quickly and quietly.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in (quietly and quickly) securing the withdrawal of all criminal charges against D.D.D.V..

R. v. M.A.A. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, October 2023]

M.A.A. contacted Ms. Fagan while serving the tail end of a sentence for manslaughter. It was alleged that he possessed a loaded handgun when he was briefly released on parole. The police discovered the handgun after a lengthy multi-target undercover drug investigation. M.A.A. initially hired Ms. Fagan for bail. Ms. Fagan obtained and reviewed disclosure, crafted a thorough proposed plan of release and schedule the matter for a contested bail hearing. The release of M.A.A. was vigorously opposed by the Crown prosecutor on both the secondary and tertiary grounds. In other words, it was the Crown’s position that if M.A.A. was released that he would re-offend and that his release would be contrary to the public interest given the serious nature of firearms and his history for using them. At the hearing, Ms. Fagan highlighted the deficiencies in the Crown’s case and the strength of the proposed plan of release which militated against any perceived risk. 

BOTTOM LINE: The Justice agreed with Ms. Fagan and ultimately granted M.A.A.’s release on bail.

R. v. H.J.J. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Okotoks, October 2023]

H.J.J. was charged with criminal harassment as follows: 

372 (3) Everyone commits an offence who, without lawful excuse and with intent to harass a person, repeatedly communicates, or causes repeated communications to be made, with them by a means of telecommunication.

H.J.J. was an industry leader in the beauty space. It was alleged that she had harassed one of her competitors by repeatedly calling and emailing her over the course of several months. H.J.J. outright denied the allegations when asked about it by the police. H.J.J. hired Ms. Fagan who obtained and reviewed all disclosure, entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for trial. 

BOTTOM LINE: Prior to trial Ms. Fagan was able to secure the withdrawal of the charge against her client.

R. v. B.C.C. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Okotoks, September 2023]

B.C.C. was a mother who attended a sporting event that her daughter was competing at. It was alleged that B.C.C. approached a young female who she had seen bully her daughter and punched her in the shoulder. B.C.C. was charged with simple assault, contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code. While B.C.C. was clear that she had spoken to the young female who had bullied her daughter, she was equally clear that no unlawful assault had taken place. Ms. Fagan promptly contacted the Crown to discuss the matter. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in securing the withdrawal of the charges against B.C.C., without B.C.C. ever having to step foot in a courtroom.

R. v. N.R.R. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, September 2023]

N.R.R. was an inmate at a federal prison serving a sentence for trafficking drugs and possession of a loaded firearm. One day, corrections officers did a random search of his cell and discovered methamphetamine and a cell phone (both of which are prohibited in prison). He was charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Crown Drug Expert estimated that the amount of profit that a person could make selling meth in prison was 300 – 400% more than they could make on the street. The Crown Drug Expert opined that this was not for personal use, and that it had to be possession for the purpose of trafficking/ selling. N.R.R. first retained Ms. Fagan to secure his release on bail. She was successful in securing his release on reasonable terms. The next goal for the defence, was to ensure that N.R.R. was not convicted of this serious charge, and sent back to jail. Ms. Fagan secured and reviewed all disclosure, and took the unusual step of hiring a second Drug Expert to review the file, and provide an opinion as to whether the amount was consistent with personal use, or whether the evidence was such that only an inference of possession for the purpose of trafficking could be drawn. A “data dump” of the contents of the cell phone seized was also generated. Thousands of text messages were disclosed. While it was clear that “someone” was moving drugs inside the prison, it was Ms. Fagan’s position that it was unclear who was moving them. Not guilty pleas were entered and a two-day trial was scheduled. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan successfully secured a stay of proceedings (i.e. the termination of the prosecution against her client) on the first day of trial.

R. v. B.M.A. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, August 2023]

This case involved charges under the Aeronautics Act and the Criminal Code. Members of the Calgary Police Service were dispatched to the Calgary International Airport to respond to a complaint of an unruly passenger on a WestJet flight. The flight had departed from Calgary and forced to return. It was alleged that during flight B.A.M. refused to wear a face mask (during COVID19) and was yelling/shouting at random passengers. He also allegedly pushed and spat on a flight attendant. An hour into the flight the Captain made the decision to return back to Calgary. B.M.A. was charged with 3 charges under the Criminal Code: s. 430(1)(d) (mischief); s. 180(1)(a) (committing a nuisance which endangers the lives, safety or health of the public and); and s. 266 (assault). He was also charged under the Aeronautics Act. 

BOTTOM LINE: B.M.A. suffered from significant mental health issues and had suffered an unexpected adverse episode during flight. He retained Ms. Fagan to advocate on his behalf. Ms. Fagan was successful in having the prosecution against B.M.A. referred to the Mental Health Diversion Program. Ultimately, all charges against B.M.A were completely withdrawn.

R. v. M.J.L. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Fort McMurray, August 2023]

M.J.L. was charged under s. 276(c) of the Criminal Code (an assault, specifically choking, causing bodily harm). M.J.L. and his partner were consuming alcohol one evening when the topic of ex-lovers was brought up. Not surprisingly, a verbal argument ensued. The complainant got violent and ultimately, called the police asking them to remove her from the home. When the police arrived, an allegation was made that M.J.L. choked and bit the complainant. M.J.L. was arrested and charged. He retained Ms. Fagan to defend him. Recognizing the weakness of the allegations, Ms. Fagan contacted the Crown to highlight the problems with the prosecution. 

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in securing the withdrawal of the charges against M.J.L., without M.J.L. ever having to step foot in a courtroom.

R. v. S.H.D. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, June 2023]

The police were contacted by a male who informed them that his female friend had disappeared one evening from the bar. Several hours later she reappeared and alleged that she had been raped by several males in a hotel room downtown Calgary. The police attended at the hotel and detained and identified 5 males, one of whom was S.H.D.. Several months later a DNA warrant was obtained from S.H.D. and another male, which matched the DNA found in various places in the hotel room and on the females body. S.H.D. initially retained Ms. Fagan for bail and, upon his release, for the defence of this matter. ‘Not guilty’ pleas were entered and a 5 day trial was scheduled in the Alberta Court of Justice. Ms. Fagan also scheduled a day of pre-trial applications, which included section 11(b) and s. 7 Charter applications. In other words, Ms. Fagan alleged that her client’s right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated (s. 11(b) of the Charter) and that the Crown had failed to provide full disclosure, resulting in a violation of her client’s right to make full answer and defence (s. 7 of the Charter). Ms. Fagan filed volumes of extensive materials supporting her position … and the day before the pre-trial applications were scheduled the Crown terminated the prosecution against Ms. Fagan’s client on the basis of the strength of the materials she filed.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in terminating the prosecution against her client, without the need to proceed to trial.

R. v. A.A.A. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, June 2023]

Late one night during the Calgary Stampede the police mobilized in response to a call that a person had been “sucker punched” by a stranger, and later that that same person discharges a handgun in the city’s beltline area. The police obtained a description of the person and eventually saw someone who they believed to meet that description. Police drew their guns and ordered A.A.A. to the ground. Over the course of the lengthy detention which followed the police discovered that A.A.A. did not have a gun (or any weapon for that matter). The position of the defence was that the detention was entirely warrantless, unlawful and in violation of her client’s Charter rights. During the course of this unlawful detention, multiple police officers endeavored to hold A.A.A. down to swab his hands for gunshot residue (“GSR”). It is during the course of this unlawful police action that they alleged that one of their members was assaulted. A.A.A. was thus charged with assaulting a police officer.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in terminating the prosecution against her client following a pre-trial hearing on the record in the Alberta Court of Justice.

R. v. W.J.E. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Wainwright, June 2023]

The police received a complainant from an energy company that W.J.E. had taken a fuel card and used it to fill their personal vehicle with gas on numerous occasions. W.J.E. had been confronted by his employer and he confessed to having done what they believed he had done. The employer turned over the confession to the police, along with CCTV footage from a number of gas stations showing W.J.E. using the fuel card. W.J.E. was charged with fraud, contrary to s. 380(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. W.J.E. hired Ms. Fagan to ensure that he did not end up with a criminal record, which would impact his employment prospects in the future. A plea of ‘not guilty’ was entered and a trial date was scheduled.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in having the charge against her client withdrawn.

R. v. Z.S.N. – [Alberta Court of Justice, April 2023]

The police conducted an extensive investigation into an alleged sex trafficking ring operating across southern Alberta. Z.S.N. was one of several men arrested and charged. Z.S.N. faced 7 charges relating to sexual interference with a person under the age of 16, two counts of sexual assault (against two separate young girls), and charges in relation to sex trafficking of persons under the age of 18. Upon his release on bail Z.S.N. hired Ms. Fagan for what was clearly going to be a defence of a complex prosecution. Thousands of pages of disclosure and hours of media were disclosed by the Crown to Ms. Fagan. Within that disclosure included a full confession which Z.S.N. had (unwisely) made to the police. To say that the odds were stacked against the defence would be a gross understatement. Ms. Fagan entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ on behalf of her client and scheduled the matter for trial in the Alberta Court of Justice. Given the complexity of the issues, several pre-trial applications and trial dates were scheduled over a span of four months. A conviction for a sexual crime of the nature alleged in this case would have resulted in a significant prison sentence for Z.S.N.. The ultimate goal in the defence of this prosecution was to prevent this from happening. Ms. Fagan filed extensive pre-trial materials relating to her client’s right to make full answer and defence.

BOTTOM LINE: During the course of a pre-trial application for disclosure, the Crown and defence negotiated an outcome that would allow Z.S.N. to avoid any jail time. Additionally, no entry of any criminal record for a sexual offence was entered.

R. v. N.R.T. – [Alberta Court of Justice, Calgary, April 2023]

N.R.T. had recently been released on parole while serving a multi-year sentence for a number of offences including possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of a firearm (handgun) and other fraud-related convictions. N.R.T. was arrested following a police chase in which a vehicle allegedly driven by N.R.T. was tracked by HAWCS (the Calgary Police helicopter) along with ground support. The police located a handgun in the bed of a truck and alleged that it was N.R.T. who put it there. Once in custody, the police also laid a second set of allegations. The police alleged that he had possessed methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking while serving in a federal penitentiary. N.R.T. had an extensive and related criminal record. Notwithstanding the obvious challenges of securing her client’s release, Ms. Fagan scheduled the matter for bail and crafted a thorough plan for release. At the bail hearing in the Alberta Court of Justice, the Crown firmly opposed the release of N.R.T. on bail. Ms. Fagan was successful in securing her client’s release.

BOTTOM LINE: N.R.T. was released on bail.

R. v. A.S.S – [Arrest Processing Unit, Calgary, April 2023]

A.S.S. had an extensive record for drug related offences. The police had conducted a multi-month investigation into suspected drug trafficking. A.S.S. was arrested and a search warrant was executed on a residence that the police believed he owned and occupied. Therein the police located psilocybin, fentanyl, cocaine, a variety of prescription medication and over 3kg of illicit cannabis. A.S.S. was also arrested for outstanding warrants for selling cocaine and illicit marijuana to an undercover officer. He was charged with over a dozen drug and proceeds of crime charges.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in securing the release of A.S.S. on bail within 24 hours of his arrest.

R. v. S.C.S. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Cochrane, April 2023]

Cochrane RCMP received information from an insurance investigator that S.C.S. was believed to have committed insurance fraud in relation to a number of vehicles. These allegations involved an altered VIN and the use of fraudulent bills of sale. S.C.S. was charged under s. 368(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (acting on a forged document) x2; s. 341 of the Criminal Code and possession of proceeds of crime over $5000 (i.e. the value of the vehicles). S.C.S. met with Ms. Fagan and explained his side of the story (i.e. that he had not done anything wrong). Pursuant to S.C.S.’s clear instructions, pleas of ‘not guilty’ were entered and a two day trial was scheduled.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in securing the withdrawal of all charges against S.C.S. prior to trial.

R. v. H.J.I. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Okotoks, March 2023]

H.J.I. faced two charges stemming from two separate events at an unofficial dog park. H.J.I., a dog owner, was alleged to have gotten into an altercation with another dog owner while the parties were walking their respective dogs by the river. During this course of this exchange, H.J.I. was alleged to have grabbed and choked another woman. The other woman did not report this to the police until several months later, after she believed she saw H.J.I. again and the observed an expletive spray-painted on her vehicle. The complainant went to the police and H.J.I. was charged with assault under section 266 of the Criminal Code and mischief/ damage to property under section 430(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. Pleas of ‘not guilty’ were entered and a trial date was scheduled.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in having both charges against H.J.I. withdrawn.

R. v. B.R.B. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Canmore, March 2023]

Late one September day, members of the RCMP stopped an eastbound vehicle on Highway 1 approximately 25 kilometers east of Lake Louise, Alberta for having a cracked windshield (an offence under the Vehicle Equipment Regulations). The vehicle was driving without issue and, when directed to do so, stopped without issue. The RCMP officer approached the driver and engaged the driver in a “Q&A” session. During the course of his interactions with the driver, the officer apparently observed an unstamped pack of cigarettes. The officer thereafter arrested the driver, and less than 2 minutes later began searching the vehicle. The officer located a bag containing a half pound of cocaine. The Applicant was released at the scene and charged with a single count of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. B.R.B. retained Ms. Fagan, who obtained and reviewed disclosure, entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled a trial date. Prior to trial Ms. Fagan filed an extensive Charter notice stating that the RCMP breached her client’s rights as guaranteed by sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter. The detention of her client was unreasonable, as was his arrest; the search of his vehicle was warrantless and unlawful; and the police failed to inform him of the true reason for his detention (i.e. a drug investigation) and of his right to counsel.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in reducing the charge from possession for the purpose of trafficking (punishable by up to life in prison) to simple possession. B.R.B. avoided a jail sentence on this very serious prosecution.

R. v. W.K.K. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, March 2023]

W.K.K. had been involved in an on-again/ off-again romantic relationship with N.K.. One day N.K. went to the police and leveled multiple accusations against W.K.K. of assault (s. 266 of the Criminal Code), assault by choking/ strangling (s. 267(c) of the Criminal Code), assault with a weapon (s. 267(a) of the Criminal Code), intimation and unlawfully counselling someone to die by suicide. W.K.K. adamantly denied the charges and hired Ms. Fagan. The Crown had the choice of proceeding summarily (less serious) or by Indictment. She chose to proceed by Indictment. Ms. Fagan obtained and reviewed disclosure, entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for a 3 day trial. Prior to trial Ms. Fagan reached out to the Crown to reveal some information that she had with respect to the complainant N.K. and the investigation.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in convincing the Crown to withdraw all charges against her client prior to trial.

R. v. R.B.E. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Youth Division, Calgary, February 2023]

R.B.E was charged following a police investigation as to an allegation of vandalism. It was alleged that R.B.E. had thrown several liquor bottles at a residence, shattered glass and causing several thousand dollars in damage. The goal was to seek to avoid the cost and stress on the young person of going to trial, while simultaneously ensuring that no conviction was entered on the youth’s record.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in ensuring that no conviction was entered on the youth’s record.

R. v. H.D.H. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, February 2023]

Factually this was a very interesting file. H.D.H. and another male were alleged to have committed a robbery with a firearm (a so-called “car jacking”) in Calgary. The vehicle was later discovered abandoned in a southern Alberta town. A cell phone was discovered in the vehicle which was searched by the police. They discovered a series of videos of a person believed to be H.D.H. and the other male driving the stolen vehicle and shooting a gun out the window. Using the canine unit, the police tracked the scent from the stolen vehicle to a residence, where they ultimately arrested two males. H.D.H was charged with section 344(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (robbery with a firearm); section 244.2(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (intentional discharge of a firearm); a number of possession based offences for the firearm (s. 90(1), s. 94(1), s. 95(1), s. 96(1), s. 88(1), s. 108(1) and s. 91(1)(a) of the Criminal Code). Additionally, he was charged with the masked commission of an indictable offence (s. 351(2) of the Criminal Code). This was not H.D.H.’s first brush with the criminal justice system, and his only concern was staying out of jail on these most serious charges. Ms. Fagan entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for preliminary inquiry.

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

R. v. A.H.A. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, February 2023]

A.H.A. was charged in relation to an alleged “road rage” incident. According to the police, a vehicle allegedly driven by A.H.A. stopped in front of a white vehicle on an off-ramp from Glenmore Trail, blocking the ability of the white car to proceed and bringing it to a stop. The driver of a third vehicle (who the police alleged was associated to A.H.A.) exited his vehicle and kicked the side mirror of the white vehicle. The incident was captured on video. A.H.A. was charged with mischief (damage to property) along with a number of traffic tickets.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in having the criminal charge withdrawn in exchange for a plea to a low-level traffic ticket with a fine of $150.00.

R. v. T.J.T. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, February 2023]

T.J.T. was a regular patron at a local Calgary pub. One evening, he hugged one of the female staff members goodbye. Another patron, who was extremely intoxicated, asked if she could have a hug as well. T.J.T. declined. She proceeded to try to hug him anyways. He indicated once again that the answer was no. CCTV shows that she became aggressive and started swinging at T.J.T. He punched the female once and knocked her to the floor. T.J.T. was later arrested and charged with assault causing bodily harm.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in having the charge against T.J.T. completely withdrawn without proceeding to trial.

R. v. T.A.A. – [Court of Queen’s Bench, Medicine Hat, February 2023]

The Medicine Hat Police say that they got a random text from a phone number about purchasing drugs. The police arranged a meet in a small town between Medicine Hat and Calgary to purchase 5 ounces of cocaine. When the undercover officers attended for the meet, 3 males including T.A.A. were arrested. When T.A.A. was arrested, he was put to the floor by the police. When he stood up a bag of cocaine was underneath him. Police also found brass knuckles on him along with cash. T.A.A. was arrested an charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, trafficking cocaine, possession of proceeds of crime and possession of a prohibited weapon. T.A.A. retained Ms. Fagan. She entered pleas of not guilty and entered an election of Queen’s Bench Judge and Jury with a preliminary inquiry. Ms. Fagan succeeded in securing the withdrawal of all but two of the charges at preliminary inquiry. The remaining two charges (possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime) proceeded to trial. Ms. Fagan scheduled a 4-day trial in the Court of Queen’s Bench and filed a Charter notice alleging the breach of her client’s s. 8, 9 and 10 Charter rights.

BOTTOM LINE: All charges against T.A.A. were withdrawn prior to trial.

R. v. A.J.L. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, January, 2023]

A.J.L. was alleged drunk and disorderly at a downtown bar. When the bouncer kicked her out she allegedly threw her cell phone, striking him in the face. A.J.L. was charged with assault with a weapon, contrary to s. 267(a) of the Criminal Code. The event was captured on CCTV, and although A.J.L. left the scene before the police arrived, they were able to track her location to a nearby residence. A.J.L. retained Ms. Fagan to ensure that she did not incur a criminal record because she had ambitious career aspirations.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in having the charge against A.J.L. withdrawn.

R. v. B.A.M. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, November 2022]

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 9th 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.

R. v. M.Q.M. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Fort McMurray, December, 2022]

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.

R. v. P.J.A. [Provincial Court of British Columbia, Vancouver, December, 2022]

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.

R. v. P.K.K. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, December, 2022]

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.

R. v. A.H.Z. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, December, 2022]

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.

R. v. F.F.C. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Okotoks, November, 2022]

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.

R. v. R.C.L. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Lethbridge, November, 2022]

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).

R. v. B.A.S. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Medicine Hat, November, 2022]

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.

R. v. R.N.K. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, November, 2022]

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.

R. v. B.H.Y. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Airdrie, September 2022]

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.

R. v. H.B.B. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, September 2022]

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.

R. v. H.B.B. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, September 2022]

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.

R. v. S.N.M. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, September 2022]

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.

R. v. A.A.M. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, September 2022]

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.

R. v. S.N.M. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, September 2022]

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.

R. v. S.N.M. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, September 2022]

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.

R. v. N.B.Z. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Lethbridge, May 2022]

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.

R. v. S.M.S. [Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Calgary, May 2022]

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.

R. v. D.G.V. [Arrest Processing Unit, Calgary, April, 2022]

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.

R. v. P.C.K. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, March, 2022]

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.

R. v. S.K.R. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, February 2022]

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. 

R. v. S.M.S. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, February 2022]

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.

R. v. O.K. – [Provincial Court of Alberta, Airdrie, February 2022]

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.

R. v. N.M.D. [Arrest Processing Unit, Calgary, February 2022]

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.

R. v. G.N.A. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, January 2022]

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.

R. v. P.R. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, November 2021]

In Winter, 2020 members of the Calgary Police Service engaged in an Operation which was aimed at arresting individuals seeking out the sexual services of women under the age of 18. CPS posted an advertisement on “Leo List” portraying a fictitious 18-year-old woman. The police alleged that P.R. allegedly contacted the phone number posted on the ad via text message. During those text messages the fictitious 18-year old (who was actually an adult police officer) advised that she was actually younger than 18. A meet was arranged a hotel. P.R. attended at the hotel and was ultimately arrested. During the course of this arrest the police struck him and deployed a Taser on his leg multiple times. P.R. was ultimately charged with resisting arrest, contrary to s. 129 of the Criminal Code and obtaining sexual services for consideration from a person under the age of 18, contrary to s. 286.1(2) of the Criminal Code. ‘Not guilty’ pleas were entered and a two day trial was scheduled. Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice in advance of trial alleging that the police both entrapped her client and that the force they used against him during the arrest was unreasonable. Ms. Fagan was able to secure the withdrawal of all charges against her client.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in terminating the prosecution against her client. No criminal record was incurred for the charges that he hired her to defend.

R. v. C.I. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Taber, October 2021]

In the late summer of 2020 the Lethbridge Police Service began a drug investigation into a male. Their surveillance led them to believe that he was trafficking drugs, possibly with the assistance of a female, C.I.. A number of undercover drug purchases were conducted. The police ultimately obtained a search warrant for a residence that they believed drugs to be stored at. C.I. was present in that residence at the time the search was conducted. Between the search conducted incident to arrest and search of the residence the police located >30g of cocaine, 5g of fentanyl, body armour, brass knuckles and cash. C.I. was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in terminating the prosecution against her client. No criminal record was incurred for the charges that she hired her to defend.

R. v. K.I. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, July 2021]

K.I. was at a local recreation centre with his son. A teenager began to insult and taunt K.I.’s son. The police alleged that K.I. pushed the teenager and charged him with assault contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code. Ms. Fagan was successful in having the charge against her client completely withdrawn.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in terminating the prosecution against her client. No criminal record was incurred for the charge that he hired her to defend.

R. v. W.C. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, June 2021]

W.C. was charged with forcible confinement, contrary to s. 279(2) of the Criminal Code, assault, contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code and sexual exploitation, contrary to s. 153(1)(b) of the Criminal Code which reads:

Sexual exploitation

• 153 (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, and who

  • (b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person.

The allegation was that while working at a youth facility W.C. engaged in a sexual relationship with a 17 year old (there was less than a 3 year age gap between the two). The complainant alleged that W.C. had provided her with alcohol and drugs in exchange for sexual favors, and that when she threatened to expose their relationship he forcibly confined and assaulted her. The Crown was in possession of social media communications between the two parties that it believed tended to support her version of events. ‘Not guilty’ pleas were entered and a two day trial was scheduled. Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice in advance of the trial date arguing, among other things, that her client’s right to make full answer and defence had been violated. As a result of the issues that the Crown had with its case as identified by Ms. Fagan, these charges never proceeded to trial. All charges against W.C. were withdrawn.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in terminating the prosecution against her client. No criminal record was incurred for the charges that he hired her to defend.

R. v. P.K. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Canmore, May 2021]

The police received confidential source information that a person was dealing drugs out of their unit in staff housing. Police installed a camera in the staff housing hallway and watched the coming of going of dozens of people, consistent with the information that they had received from the confidential source. The police eventually obtained a search warrant and discovered a veritable pharmacy in the unit they believe belonged to P.K.. Police located large amounts of cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD, psilocybin (“magic mushrooms”), fentanyl and carfentanyl. Additionally police discovered over $30,000 in cash. P.K. was charged with 14 criminal allegations. Ms. Fagan was retained to conduct a 4 day trial and was successful in securing a stay of proceedings on all charges against her client.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in terminating the prosecution against her client. No criminal record was incurred for the charges that he hired her to defend.

R. v. H.A.P. [Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Calgary, May 2021]

The police received information from a confidential source that a particular phone number was being used to sell fentanyl. Between the summer of 2018 and the winter of 2019 the police made approximately a dozen purchases of fentanyl from a male, W.W.. During a number of these purchases W.W. was seen entering another vehicle prior to meeting with the undercover officer. W.W. advised the undercover that this was his supplier. After making a final purchase of fentanyl the police stopped the vehicle of the believed-to-be supplier and arrested the sole occupant, H.A.P. The police conducted a warrantless arrest and search incident thereto locating cash and a significant amount of fentanyl and cocaine. Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice arguing that her client was subject to an unlawful arrest and search, and that the police had engaged in entrapment. The matter was scheduled for a 4 day trial. Ms. Fagan was successful in securing a stay of proceedings prior to the Crown calling its first witness at trial.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in terminating the prosecution against her client. No criminal record was incurred for the charges that he hired her to defend.

R. v. C.A. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, April 2021]

In the summer of 2019 C.A. was alleged to have gotten into a fight with an acquaintance. The acquaintance suffered severe injuries and C.A. was charged with assault. While there were multiple civilian witnesses, Ms. Fagan was successful in securing the withdrawal of the charge without going to trial.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in terminating the prosecution against her client. No criminal record was incurred for the charges that he hired her to defend.

R. v. S.S. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, April 2021]

In the late Fall of 2019 members of the Calgary Police Service received a 911 call in regards to a domestic disturbance. They responded and immediately located and began questioning S.S. about what had occurred. S.S.’s girlfriend was located with her lip split entirely open, which required several stitches and dental surgery to correct. She alleged that S.S. had struck her while he was driving as she sat in the passenger seat of their vehicle. S.S. was arrested and charged with assault causing bodily harm. Ms. Fagan entered a plea of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for trial. The trial lasted four full days. At the conclusion of hearing evidence and argument the Judge agreed with Ms. Fagan that the Crown had not proven her client’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. S.S. was found ‘not guilty’.

BOTTOM LINE: An acquittal was entered at the conclusion of trial. Not guilty.

R. v. H.A.S. [Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Calgary, March 2021]

Police responded to a call for service in SW Calgary. The caller had indicated concern that a vehicle was parked in an alleyway idling and the driver appeared to be asleep. Several officers, with firearms drawn attended at the vehicle and awoke the driver by shattering the driver’s side window and physically pulling him through the window. Thereafter the police violently took him to the ground and pointed firearms at him. During the course of H.A.S.’s unceremonious eviction from his vehicle a bag of cocaine fell to the ground. Police conducted further searches and discovered approximately 12g of cocaine, 10g of fentanyl, cash and a knife. The police also discovered that H.A.S. was out on bail conditions for another set of drug allegations. In total, H.A.S. faced six serious charges that carried with them, upon conviction, the certainty of a significant time in prison. H.A.S. was initially represented by other defence counsel for preliminary inquiry, but sought Ms. Fagan’s expertise for trial. Ms. Fagan was successful in securing a stay of proceedings on all charges against her client prior to the commencement of a five day trial.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in terminating the prosecution against her client. No criminal record was incurred for the charges that he hired her to defend.

R. v. E.N. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Rocky Mountain House, March 2021]

E.N. was out drinking with friends at a local restaurant. He got into a verbal altercation with another patron and the two decided to “take things outside”. A fight ensued and witnesses told police that E.N. knocked the other male to the ground and then proceeded to kick his head. Serious injuries ensued which required transport to hospital. E.N. was arrested and charged with assault causing bodily harm. A ‘not guilty’ plea was entered and a one day trial was scheduled. The trial commenced as scheduled. Midway through trial the Crown acknowledged the strength of Ms. Fagan’s position and ultimately asked the Judge to dismiss the charge against E.N.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in terminating the prosecution against her client. No criminal record was incurred for the charges that he hired her to defend.

R. v. B.A. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, March 2021]

Members of the Calgary Police Service were on routine patrol in Northeast Calgary in the winter of 2020. They observed what they described as a “suspicious interaction” by a driver in a vehicle. They stopped that vehicle and spoke with the driver, observing 8.9g of crack cocaine in a baggie on his lap. They arrested him and discovered more than $5000.00 cash in the vehicle. B.A. was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime. Ultimately Ms. Fagan entered a guilty plea on behalf of her client to the lesser included offence of simple possession of cocaine (i.e. personal use) and conducted a sentencing hearing where she argued that in the unique circumstances, her client should be granted an absolute discharge (meaning that there would be no criminal record). The Judge ultimately agreed with Ms. Fagan.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in ensuring that there was no criminal record incurred for the charges that he hired her to defend.

R. v. H.A.C. [Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Calgary, March 2021]

In late 2018 members of the Calgary Police Service contacted a phone number that had been provided to them by way of a Crime Stoppers tip. The police arranged a meeting with the person who answered there phone, purportedly to purchase heroin. Two males attended at the agreed upon meeting spot in a vehicle and the undercover police officer entered the backseat of that vehicle. During the interaction in the vehicle, one of the males demanded that the undercover officer sample the heroin in front of them so that they could ensure that s/he was not a police officer. When the undercover officer refused, the males demanded s/he exit the vehicle and threatened the use of a weapon. No sale of heroin ever occurred. The two males were arrested and upon searching the vehicle the police discovered a substantial amount of cocaine and cash. H.A.C. was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime. A three day trial was scheduled in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. Ms. Fagan was successful in securing a stay of proceedings on all charges against her client.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in terminating the prosecution against her client. No criminal record was incurred for the charges that he hired her to defend.

R. v. C.A.D. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, March 2021]

C.A.D. was at the Calgary International Airport. While going through pre-board screening a set of brass knuckles was found in a bag alleged to belong to him. The police eventually arrested him for possession of a prohibited weapon contrary to s. 92(2) of the Criminal Code. Ms. Fagan was successful in securing the withdrawal of the charge prior to trial.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in terminating the prosecution against her client. No criminal record was incurred for the charges that he hired her to defend.

R. v. K.S. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, November 2020]

Members of the Calgary Police Service received from a confidential source the name and a phone number of person that the source said was selling cocaine. The number was contacted by an undercover operator and a drug meet was arranged. It turned out to be a good tip. In total the undercover police officer made 8 purchases of cocaine from who they believed to be K.S.. After the 8 th purchase they arrested him. He faced 18 serious charges of trafficking cocaine, possession of cocaine for the purpose including trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime. Ms. Fagan entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for a two-day trial. Prior to the trial commencing, Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice and a legal brief stating that her client’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated and that a stay of proceedings should be entered (i.e. the prosecution against her client should be terminated before even going to trial). Ms. Fagan appeared in Provincial Court and the Judge heard argument from both her and the Crown. At the conclusion of argument the Judge agreed with Ms. Fagan and terminated the prosecution against K.S..

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in terminating the prosecution against her client. No criminal record was incurred for the charges that he hired her to defend.

R. v. A.Y. [Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Calgary, November 2020]

The police initiated a multi-month undercover drug investigation after receiving confidential information that another person, P.G. was trafficking drugs. During the course of surveillance the police saw who they believed to be A.Y. engaging in activity consistent with drug trafficking. After acquiring what the police believed to be sufficient evidence to lay charges, the police conducted a takedown of Y.A. and executed a search warrant on his residence. The police located 15 bags of cocaine in his pocket along with $3700 cash. The police also located half a pound of cocaine and $4700 in the residence under the search warrant. Pleas of ‘not guilty’ were entered and the matter was scheduled for a 5 day trial in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. Stakes were particularly high because A.Y. was not a Canadian citizen and would likely be subject to deportation if Ms. Fagan was not successful in her defence of this most serious prosecution. Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice challenging the validity of the search warrant as well as the grounds for arresting Y.A.. Ms. Fagan filed a written legal brief and oral argument spanned the first day and a half of trial time. When she completed her oral argument the Crown conceded the strength of her position and entered a stay of proceedings on all charges (i.e. Ms. Fagan was successful in having the prosecution against Y.A. terminated).

BOTTOM LINE: No criminal record was incurred by A.Y. for the charges that he hired Ms. Fagan to defend, nor was he deported from the country.

R. v. L.A. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Didsbury, November 2020]

RCMP believed there to be a massive grow operation at a rural residence in central Alberta. Surveillance culminated in the police executing a search warrant where they discovered a multi-stage marijuana grow operation. In total the police seized nearly 60 kilograms of cannabis. L.A. was found in the residence and charged with production contrary to s. 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, possession for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and theft of electricity. Prior to the matter being scheduled for trial Ms. Fagan was successful in securing a stay of proceedings on all charges.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in terminating the prosecution against L.A. prior to trial … he did not incur a criminal record for the charges that he hired Ms. Fagan to defend.

R. v. V.Z. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Canmore, July 2020]

Members of the RCMP were monitoring east bound traffic on Highway 1 near Canmore, Alberta. The police spotted a truck which appeared not to be equipped with mud flaps. The police conducted a traffic stop and approached the passenger side of the motor vehicle and spoke with the driver and the passenger (V.Z.). The police questioned the passenger, obtained his identification and detained him for a drug investigation. A police service dog was deployed who triggered on the odor of drugs. Police searched the vehicle and discovered nearly a kilogram of cocaine and a small amount of methamphetamine. V.Z.was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking which carries with it the potential for life imprisonment. V.Z. hired Ms. Fagan, who entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled the matter for trial. Prior to trial Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice alleging: (i) that the Crown failed to provide full disclosure and violated her client’s right to make full answer and defence; (ii) that there was an abuse of process because the police deliberately muted their microphones when dealing with V.Z. at the roadside (iii) that the police unlawfully detained her client; (iv) that the police violated V.Z.’s right to be informed of the true reason for his detention; (v) that the police violated V.Z.’s right to counsel; and (vi) that the police conducted an unlawful arrest and search incident to. After filing the Charter and prior to V.Z. stepping foot in the courtroom, Ms. Fagan was successful in securing a stay of proceedings on all charges.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in terminating the prosecution against V.Z. prior to trial … he did not incur a criminal record for the charges that he hired Ms. Fagan to defend.

R. v. F.B. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, July 2020]

In June, 2019 members of the Red Deer RCMP received information that a man was supplying drugs throughout Alberta. A large-scale multi-city investigation was launched which culminated in a series of arrests. One of those arrests was F.B. F.B. was charged with trafficking contrary to s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, possession of proceeds of crime contrary to s. 355 of the Criminal Code and a number of weapons charges contrary to s. 92(2) of the Criminal Code. He was allegedly seen in the parking lot of a grocery store transferring a box of what the police later discovered to be over a half pound of cannabis, over 100g of hash oil, and psilocybin (“magic mushrooms”). Police also discovered cash and knives in F.B.’s vehicle. Pleas of ‘not guilty’ were entered and the matter was scheduled for a 5 day trial. In advance of trial Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice alleging that the police breached his right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure and that they breached his right not to be arbitrarily detained. She further argued that her client’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been breached. After the filing of the Charter notice, and before F.B. had to step foot in a courtroom, Ms. Fagan was successful in securing a stay of proceedings on all charges.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in terminating the prosecution against F.B. … he did not incur a criminal record for the charges that he hired Ms. Fagan to defend.

2019

R. v. M.J. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, December 2019]

M.J. was alleged to have gotten into an argument with his domestic partner and a male who he believed her to be romantically involved with. He was charged with two counts of assault and intimidation of a justice system participant. Pleas of ‘not guilty’ were entered and a trial date was scheduled. The Crown called four witnesses during trial. At the conclusion of a two day trial M.J. was acquitted (i.e. found NOT guilty) of two counts. Ms. Fagan argued for, and received, a conditional discharge on the third charge.

BOTTOM LINE: No criminal record was incurred by M.J. for the charges that he hired Ms. Fagan to defend.

R. v. T.M. [Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Red Deer, October 2019]

T.M. was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference with a person under the age of 16. When it comes to sexual contact with a person who is 14 or 15 years old the law permits for consensual sexual contact with a similar-aged peer who is not more than 5 years older than the 14/15 year old (sometimes referred to as the “close in age exception”). The allegations took place in the context of a relationship between T.M. and a young female that had been ongoing for some time. The relationship was discovered when it was disclosed to a psychiatrist who had a duty to report it to the police. The age gap between the two parties was just outside the close in age exception. The matter was scheduled for a two day trial in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. On the first day of trial Ms. Fagan was successful in obtaining a stay of proceedings on all charges (in other words, she succeeded in terminating the prosecution against her client).

BOTTOM LINE: No criminal record was incurred by T.M.

R. v. K.L. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, September 2019]

K.L. was charged with the serious offence of robbery, contrary to s. 344(1)(b), which is punishable by up to life in prison. Late one night K.L. and another male ordered a taxi. The Crown alleged that K.L. and the other male instigated a dispute with the taxi driver which led to the two males allegedly beating the taxi driver and stealing an envelope full of money from him. Most of the altercation between the parties was captured by dash camera.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was able to get the charge against K.L. completely withdrawn prior to trial.

R. v. C.S. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, May 2019]

C.S. was pulled over for running a red light on 17th avenue SW at approximately 2:00am. The police detected an odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle. C.S. maintained that she had not drank any alcohol and that the odor of alcohol was coming from her three intoxicated passengers, for whom she was the designated driver. A demand for a roadside sample of her breath was made and for whatever reason, C.S. was unable to provide a suitable sample. She was charged with failing/refusing to provide a breath sample and put in the back of the police car. During this time the passengers in her vehicle got out and became belligerent with police. A fight later broke out between some unrelated males across the street which police attended to. Over the course of more than an hour S.C. was detained in the back of the police vehicle without being told why, and without being advised of her right to counsel and right to silence. Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice arguing that her client’s rights had been violated as a consequence of the foregoing.

BOTTOM LINE: The charge against C.S. was completely withdrawn.

R. v. D.A. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Canmore, May 2019]

A. had spent the day snowboarding and as he was driving from the ski hill he ran into a check stop. At the check stop it was noted that there was a smell of burnt cannabis coming from the vehicle. D. A. had glossy bloodshot eyes and the smell of cannabis was still present when D. A. got out of the vehicle. D. A. admitted to smoking cannabis 1 hour prior. A Standard Field Sobriety Test was administered, which the police officer concluded D.A. had failed. D. A. was arrested for impaired driving. He eventually provided a sample of his breath and the results showed that his blood alcohol level was over the legal limit. Ms. Fagan scheduled the matter for trial and filed a Charter notice, alleging that he client was unlawfully arrested because the police lacked the reasonable grounds required to arrest him, that he was denied his right to counsel and that the police unlawfully seized breath samples from him.

BOTTOM LINE: All charges were stayed (i.e. the prosecution against D.A. was terminated) prior to trial.

R. v. M.K. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, April 2019]

The police received multiple calls about an impaired driver. Each of these calls detailed that the driver almost hit a child on a bicycle, that he was falling asleep at red lights, that he was running other vehicles of the road and that he was erratically weaving in and out of traffic. A civilian witness followed M.K.’s car into a cul de sac in a residential area and watched him fall asleep at the wheel of his vehicle in the middle of the road. When the police arrived they hauled the driver out the vehicle and onto the pavement, arresting him for impaired driving. The in-car video recording showed M.K. unable to maintain balance and consciousness. Ultimately, M.K. was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample – the conclusion drawn by the police was that he was simply too impaired to provide a breath sample. The matter was scheduled for trial. At trial the civilian witnesses testified and were cross-examined by Ms. Fagan, as was the primary officer who arrested M.K.

BOTTOM LINE:   Following Ms. Fagan’s cross-examination of the primary officer the Crown conceded that she had no reasonable likelihood of conviction and invited the court to acquit M.K.. Verdicts of “not guilty” were entered on all charges against M.K.

R. v. F.J. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Cochrane, April 2019]

F.J. was pulled over for running a stop sign at approximately 2:00am. The police detected alcohol on his breath, observed that he had slurred speech and alcohol was observed throughout the vehicle.  F.J. was arrested for impaired driving. The in-car audio visual recording showed that F.J. was less than courteous with police … this eventually led to an altercation in which the police were allegedly injured by F.J.  F. J. was charged with impaired driving, refusing to provide a breath sample, obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duties and assaulting a police officer. Ms. Fagan scheduled the matter for trial and filed a Charter notice alleging that her client was arbitrarily detained, that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel and that his security of the person was violated because he was not released from custody until nearly 18 hours after his arrest.

BOTTOM LINE: Upon receiving Ms. Fagan’s Charter notice all criminal charges against F.J. were completely withdrawn before the commencement of trial.

R. v. S.A. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, April 2019]

A member of the Calgary Police Service responded to a single motor vehicle crash where a vehicle had crashed into the center median in the City’s northeast due to icy conditions. The police arrived and spoke with S.A. about the crash. S.A. asked if he could sit in the police vehicle to stay warm, as it was -30’C. The police officer obliged and put him in the back of the police vehicle. While S.A. was seated there, the police ran his name through a computer database that showed he was on bail conditions in relation to his arrest on drug trafficking charges from a few months prior. The police proceeded to arrest S.A. for a (non-existent) breach of his bail condition, notwithstanding that S.A. explained that the particular bail condition in question had been deleted a few weeks prior. En route to arrest processing, S.A. became angry and began banging on the barrier between the back seat and the front where the officer was driving. The officer pulled his vehicle over to the side of the road and an audio recording captured a physical altercation between the two including when S.A. asked the officer: “Do you want to die”. Half a dozen other police officers were dispatched to the scene to assist. Eventually, S.A. was charged with assaulting a peace officer with a weapon, uttering threats, assaulting a peace officer causing bodily harm and breaching his bail conditions. Ms. Fagan scheduled a trial in Provincial Court. In her review of disclosure Ms. Fagan noticed that while some of the video footage was provided, there were critical parts missing that she believed would depict the police assaulting her client. Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice alleging a violation of the right of her client to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and his right to the security of his person. She also alleged a violation of her client’s right to make full answer and defence, because she believed that the entirety of the video footage was not disclosed.

BOTTOM LINE: The videos which Ms. Fagan believed depicted the assault of her client were never disclosed and all a stay of proceedings entered on all charges (i.e. the prosecution against S.A. was terminated).

R. v. E.K. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, March 2019]

E.K. was charged with possession of fentanyl. E.K. was an addict who had been using fentanyl for years and was eventually arrested when a cab driver called the police because she was passed out in the back seat of his taxi. When the police arrived they located the fentanyl on her person. In light of the well-publicized dangers of fentanyl, the Crown Prosecutor’s office had been asking courts to impose jail terms on those convicted of simple possession, even where the person was an addict. There were no reported (written and published) decisions in the Province of Alberta where Defence counsel had successfully argued for a discharge for their client (i.e. the withdrawal of all charges on the completion of certain conditions, typically one of which is drug treatment). Ms. Fagan was able to obtain this result for her client.

BOTTOM LINE: The charge against E.K. was withdrawn upon the completion of conditions pursuant to a conditional discharge.

R. v. S.T. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, March 2019]

S.T. was pulled over for failing to signal and for apparently swearing at the police as he drove by. The police smelled fresh raw marijuana and proceeded to ask S.T. questions relative to the existence and quantity of same. This was all captured on the police in-car audio-visual recording system and disclosed to defence. The police found what was described as a “moving pharmacy” – S.T. was charged with illegal possession of clonazepam, diazepam, oxycodone, oxycontin, apo-oxycodone-aceaminphen, morphine, oxycocet and novo-pheniram. He was also charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. Ms. Fagan scheduled the matter for trial before a Provincial Court Judge. A pre-trial conference was also scheduled. Ms. Fagan had the audio-visual recording transcribed and provided a copy to the Judge presiding over the conference and to the Crown Prosecutor. Ms. Fagan argued that the questioning by police about the marijuana was an illegal search by police and provided cases where Judges had found in favor of the Defence on similar facts.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in having all 10 drug charges against S.T. withdrawn pursuant to a conditional discharge.

R. v. M.J. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, March 2019]

For the third time in two years M.J. was charged with a litany of offences relating to the alleged possession of and trafficking in cocaine. Each time Ms. Fagan successfully secured his release on bail. For M.J.’s third arrest he retained the services of another lawyer for the purposes of bail and was ordered detained in custody by the presiding Justice of the Peace. He then retained Ms. Fagan to conduct a bail review.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan successfully obtained M.J.’s release on bail.

R. v. C.A. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, February 2019

C.A. was charged with robbery contrary to section 344 of the Criminal Code; aggravated assault under s. 268 of the Criminal Code and uttering death threats contrary to s. 264.1 of Criminal Code. The complainant alleged that C.A., who he knew socially, attacked and robbed him in an alley leaving him with devastating and permanent damage to his face. C.A.’s position was that the fight was consensual and there was no robbery.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was able to get all charges against C.A. withdrawn pursuant to a 12 month peacebond (i.e. C.A. agreed to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a year). No conviction was entered.

R. v. M.J. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, February 2019]

M.J. faced twenty-two (22) charges which included possession of proceeds of crime and trafficking in cocaine. On ten occasions M.J. was alleged to have sold cocaine to an undercover police officer over the course of seven months. Most of these transactions were captured in a high quality audio-visual recording in which the seller (allegedly M.J.) was clearly identifiable. The challenges that this presented from a Defence perspective were obvious. The Crown’s position on sentence for a pre-trial guilty plea was upwards of 3 years incarceration. M.J. instructed Ms. Fagan to proceed to trial, notwithstanding that the odds were stacked against him. Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice alleging that her client had been entrapped by the police in violation of his rights as guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter. Two days prior to the commencement of a two-day trial, the Crown provided hundreds of pages of new disclosure to Ms. Fagan which effectively destroyed any chance at mounting an entrapment argument. The trial date was adjourned (i.e. rescheduled) at Ms. Fagan’s request. As a consequence of the delay of her client’s trial, Ms. Fagan argued that her client’s legal costs going forward should be paid by the Crown. While an order of costs in criminal law is exceedingly rare, the Court agreed and directed that the Crown pay for MJ.’s legal fees. A second trial date was scheduled and Ms. Fagan filed an additional Charter notice arguing that the delay from the late disclosure meant that her client’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated. For reasons which were not made clear by the Crown, the second trial date was ultimately rescheduled as well, further strengthening M.J.’s Charter position.

BOTTOM LINE: The Crown, ostensibly acknowledging the strength of Ms. Fagan’s argument, entered a stay of proceedings against M.J. (i.e. they terminated the prosecution against him).

2018

R. v. Z.R. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Lethbridge, December 2018]

Z.R. was out at a local drinking establishment one night when he and his friends allegedly exchanged words with a group of intoxicated women. Z.R. and his friends left the bar in a vehicle. They were followed by the complainant and her friends in a second vehicle. After being followed for several blocks all parties exited their vehicles at a stop light and further words were exchanged. Ultimately, one of the females ended up needing significant dental work after an alleged punch to her mouth knocked out her teeth. Z.R. was arrested and charged with aggravated assault contrary to s. 268 of the Criminal Code. Prior to scheduling the matter for trial Ms. Fagan spoke with the Crown Prosecutor and discussed what she believed was a non-existent (or best case, low) likelihood of conviction. The Crown agreed.

BOTTOM LINE: The most serious charge of aggravated assault was completely withdrawn without Z.R. having to step foot in a courtroom.

R. v. A.D. [Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan, Swift Current, December 2018]

A.D. was driving along the TransCanada Highway heading east when he was pulled over by members of the RCMP. When they approached the vehicle to speak with A.D., the driver and lone occupant, the officers sensed that he was nervous and noted what they believed to be several indicia of a person transporting drugs including that he was driving a rental car which was rented for a short period of time, and was travelling from a “source” Province to a “distribution” Province. When the police conducted a database check on the driver they discovered a report that mentioned an affiliation with the “Hell’s Angels” and the drug “meth”. The police arrested A.D. and conducted a search of his vehicle where they located 350g of cocaine. A.D. was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, which is punishable by up to life in prison. A preliminary inquiry was held and (no surprises) the Court determined that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. The trial was initially scheduled for two days. An additional two days was scheduled for argument. Ms. Fagan argued a number of Charter violations including: (1) that the police had no grounds for the initial traffic stop. It was arbitrary and unconstitutional; (2) in questioning A.D. the police violated his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and that they failed to advise him of the true reason for his detention and his right to contact counsel; (3) that there were insufficient grounds for a warrantless arrest and search and finally, (4) that all evidence obtained by police (i.e. the brick of cocaine) should be excluded from evidence. Following extensive cross-examination of the officers involved Ms. Fagan launched an attack on their credibility, alleging that their version of events was not believable and that there had been grave breaches of her client’s Charter rights. Arguments were made orally and then written submissions were directed by the presiding Justice. In addition to oral submissions, Ms. Fagan also wrote and filed a 65 page legal memorandum and the matter was thereafter scheduled for decision.

BOTTOM LINE: The week before the Judge was scheduled to give his decision following trial the Crown entered a stay of proceedings (i.e. ended the prosecution again A.D.), ostensibly acknowledging the strength of Ms. Fagan’s position.

R. v. J.C.  [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, December 2018]

Police observed J.C. fail to stop at a stop sign. When they pulled him over he was unable to produce his vehicle documentation and the police detected alcohol on his breath. J.C.’s partner was in the vehicle and advised the police that J.C. had been drinking. J.C. was asked to and did provide a roadside sample of his breath, which showed a FAIL and gave the police the ostensible grounds to arrest him. He was taken to the police station where his breath samples showed that his blood alcohol level was more than double the legal limit. J.C. was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit, contrary to ss. 253(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code and a number of traffic offences under the Traffic Safety Act. Ms. Fagan scheduled the matter for trial and filed a Charter notice alleging a breach of his right to be free from arbitrary detention, his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and his right to counsel.

BOTTOM LINE: J.C. entered a guilty plea to one traffic ticket and received a fine; all criminal charges against him and all other traffic tickets were withdrawn.

R. v. M.A. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, November 2018]

Members of the Calgary Police Service conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle when the driver failed to signal before turning. M.A. was seated in the back seat of the vehicle. The police noted indicia consistent with the possession of drugs – an odor of marijuana, nervousness and evasiveness by the occupants of the vehicle. The driver and M.A. were arrested. A bag of 61.9g of crack cocaine was located in a bag draped around M.A.’s shoulder along with two cell phones and a significant amount of cash. M.A. was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) and possession of proceeds of crime contrary to s. 355 of the Criminal Code. M.A. admitted to the police that the drugs were his. Ms. Fagan scheduled the matter for trial in Provincial Court. The first trial date scheduled was adjourned as a consequence of the Crown providing the defence with late disclosure. Ms. Fagan highlighted the potential challenges that the Crown would face due to the delay of the trial and a deal was struck.

BOTTOM LINE: The most serious charge of possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking was withdrawn and M.A. entered a guilty plea to a single count of simple possession (for 61.9g of crack cocaine….) for a fine of $1000.00.

R. v. G.A. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, November 2018]

G.A. was charged under s. 268 of the Criminal Code with aggravated assault (i.e. one step below manslaughter) following a “brawl” outside of a local bar. The police alleged that G.A. had kicked the complainant in the head and permanently paralyzed him from the neck down. There were multiple witnesses, and the kick and subsequent paralysis was captured on CCTV video. If convicted G.A. faced significant jail time. The matter was scheduled for a preliminary inquiry. In advance of the preliminary inquiry Ms. Fagan and the Crown prosecutor spoke. Ms. Fagan argued that the Crown had no reasonable likelihood of conviction because they would not be able to prove the identity of her client as the person who kicked and paralyzed the complainant. The Crown, ostensibly, agreed.

BOTTOM LINE: A stay of proceedings was entered against G.A. (i.e. the prosecution against Ms. Fagan’s client was ended) without him having to step foot in a courtroom.

R. v. N.R. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, October 2018]

N.R. was facing almost 30 charges stemming from multiple seperate investigations, in three different jurisdictions. In one rural Alberta town he was alleged to have driven by a police officer going double the speed limit and a police chase ensued. They ultimately traced N.R. to a residence which the police entered and searched finding a loaded handgun and cocaine. N.R. was charged with a number of firearm offences and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. He was released on bail. Some months later in a different rural Alberta town, he was alleged to have nearly run over a police officer conducting radar and another police chase ensued. N.R. crashed his car and then ran into a field to escape capture by the police. He was ultimately apprehended and charged with impaired driving, flight from police and breach of his bail conditions. Again, he was released on bail. Next, N.R. was charged in a complex robbery and counterfeit currency investigation. Among the charges were pointing a firearm (s. 87(1) of the Criminal Code); possession of break-in instruments (s. 351(2) of the Criminal Code); robbery (s. 344 of the Criminal Code which carries a mandatory minimum punishment of 4 years in jail); fraud (s. 380 of the Criminal Code) and various charges relating to counterfeit currency. He retained Ms. Fagan for, among other things, the conduct of his bail hearing. Clearly this was an uphill battle. It was made worse by the fact that N.R. had a criminal record and was charged with multiple counts of breaching his existing bail conditions. A bail hearing was scheduled and run by Ms. Fagan.

BOTTOM LINE: Notwithstanding the enormous odds against them, Ms. Fagan was able to secure her client’s release on bail (again).

R. v. B.M. [Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Calgary, September 2018]

B.M. was charged with a single count of sexual assault. B.M. and his friends met two women at a liquor store. They invited them to drink in their hotel room and as a group they later went out to a local bar. When the bar closed, the group including two women returned to the hotel room. One of the women alleged that B.M. had non-consensual sexual intercourse with her at that time. The other woman told police that she had witnessed M.B. having sex with her friend while her friend screamed out “no, no, no”. B.M. did not deny sexual contact but maintained that it was consensual and in fact initiated by the woman. The matter was scheduled for preliminary inquiry and then eventually for trial in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. After multiple instances of delayed disclosure by the Crown Ms. Fagan brought an application for a stay of proceedings as a consequence of the violation of her client’s right to be tried within a reasonable time. She filed a 50 page legal brief in support of this application.

BOTTOM LINE: a verdict of not guilty was entered. B.M. was acquitted.

R. v. W.O. [Arrest Processing Unit, Calgary, September 2018]

W.O. was charged with sexually assaulting one of his employees, contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code. This alleged sexual assault was captured on video. W.O. retained Ms. Fagan initially for bail and later for trial.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was able to secure W.O.’s release on minimal conditions promptly following his arrest

R. v. V.H. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, September 2018]

In early 2017 the Calgary Police Service was involved in an undercover drug investigation targeting V.H.. The police eventually made an evidentiary purchase of cocaine from V.H. (allegedly), which was captured on film. Further attempts were made to purchase cocaine by the police without any luck for several weeks. Finally a second transaction was arranged. When V.H. attended for the meet the police arrested him and searched his vehicle. There they located large amounts of cocaine, marijuana and cash. V.H. was charged with possession of cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), trafficking in cocaine x 2 contrary to s. 5(1) of the CDSA and possession of proceeds of crime. Ms. Fagan alleged that her client had been entrapped in violation of his rights as guaranteed by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

BOTTOM LINE: All charges against V.H. were stayed (i.e. the prosecution against him was brought to an end).

R. v. M.N. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, August 2018]

M.N.’s matters had a complicated history. In 2014 he had been convicted under the Securities Act of fraudulently obtaining funds from various people for an investment he was promoting (which as it turns out, did not exist). He entered guilty pleas under the Securities Act and spent 2 years in jail and 3 years on probation (note: Ms. Fagan was not counsel at this time). While he was in custody the police discovered other alleged victims of M.N.’s scheme and further alleged that while in prison he was actively soliciting new investors to give him money. According to the police, there were 9 new victims/ complainants who had been allegedly defrauded of approximately $250,000. In 2015 M.N. was released on conditions that, among other things, he refrain from possessing any bank or credit cards in anyone else’s name. In 2018 he was charged with multiple breaches of this condition. He retained Ms. Fagan to (among other things) assist with bail. Ms. Fagan scheduled the matter for bail, which was hotly opposed by the Crown.

BOTTOM LINE: Mid-way through Ms. Fagan’s submissions at the bail hearing the Crown consented to M.N.’s release.

R. v. P.K. [Alberta Provincial Court, Calgary, July 2018]

The police conducted a vehicle stop on P.K.’s vehicle after observing that it had damage to its front end. Police computer database checks showed that P.K. had a warrant for his arrest. He was arrested and his vehicle was searched incident to arrest. He was ultimately charged with three counts of section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act – Possession for the purposes of trafficking in cannabis resin, cocaine, methamphetamine and with possession of proceeds of crime. Ms. Fagan took the position that the amount of drugs seized was more consistent with personal use than it was with trafficking (notwithstanding that the police seized a cell phone with drug-related conversations; a scale; drug packaging and cash). ‘No guilty’ pleas were entered and the matter was scheduled for trial.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was able to secure Alternative Measures for her client (in other words, upon the completion of community service hours P.K.’s charges were completely withdrawn).

R. v. R.M. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Jasper, July 2018]

R.M. was charged with assaulting her boyfriend following a night of drinking (section 266 of the Criminal Code). Due to the comparatively minor nature of the allegations, the Crown offered to resolve the matter by way of a peacebond (ie. withdrawal of the charges so long as certain conditions are satisfied). The issue was that R.M. was at risk of losing her career if she received a peacebond or was convicted.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan successfully negotiated with the Crown to outright withdraw the charge against her client.

R. v. H.S. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Lethbridge, July 2018]

In an odd factual scenario, H.S. was charged with assaulting her husband and he in turn was charged with assaulting her. H.S. unequivocally asserted her innocence. She was charged under section 266 of the Criminal Code. Ms. Fagan was prepared to enter a plea of ‘not guilty’ and schedule a trial date. Before doing so she spoke with the Crown, and was successful in getting him to agree to withdraw the charge against her client

BOTTOM LINE: The charge against H.S. was completely withdrawn.

R. v. F.M. [Alberta Court of Appeal, Calgary, June 2018]

F.M. was represented by other counsel at trial (i.e. NOT Ms. Fagan or anyone from her firm). Following trial he was convicted of three counts of trafficking cocaine and three counts of possession of proceeds of crime. He was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison. He retained Ms. Fagan for the purpose of providing an opinion as to the merits of the appeal and to make an application for bail pending appeal (notoriously difficult to obtain in this jurisdiction). Extensive written materials were filed and oral submissions made in the Court of Appeal.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was able to convince the Court that this was a meritorious appeal and that her client should be released on bail.

R. v. C.A. [Alberta Provincial Court, Calgary, June 2018]

C.A. was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample and impaired driving. Just after 2:00am a civilian witness saw the vehicle driven by A.C. lose control and run into a power pole in the downtown core going approximately 60 km/ hour. The vehicle was described as driving up the pole and then doing a 180 turn. The powerlines were knocked to the ground. Police, EMS and fire were dispatched. When the police arrived on scene they asked C.A. what happened, she slurred  “I’m super intoxicated”. She was arrested and put in the back of the police car where she laid face down moaning. When she arrived at the police station she was incomprehensible and unable to balance. She was in and out of sleep and had a hard time controlling her body movements. Ultimately she provided a single sample of her breath which measured at over three times the legal limit. She was not able to provide a second sample because she lost her balance and fell on the breathlyzer machine, aborting the test. She then could not maintain consciousness for long enough to provide a sample. Ms. Fagan entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ and scheduled a trial date. The trial commenced in January and continued over the course of several days in the months that followed.

BOTTOM LINE: Ostensibly acknowledging the strength of Ms. Fagan’s position, the Crown withdrew all charges against C.A. midway through trial.

R. v. M.R. [Provincial Court of Alberta, Strathmore, April 2018]

Police received a call from concerned family members that M.R. was going to commit suicide or otherwise harm himself and that he was in possession of several firearms. The police attended at his residence and endeavored to gain consensual access without any luck. The ultimately deployed tear gas and conducted a forced entry, locating M.R. and several firearms (which were all lawfully owned and stored). The Crown brought an application to have all the firearms forfeited. It argued that it was not in the public interest for M.R. to have his firearms returned. M.R. retained Ms. Fagan to secure the return of his firearms. A hearing was scheduled and Ms. Fagan attended on M.R.’s behalf

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in arguing that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter and that the police had no authority to keep the seized firearms. All firearms were returned to M.R.

R. v. K.R. [Alberta Provincial Court, Calgary, April 2018]

Police received a report of “road rage” complaining of a driver who waived a handgun and threatened another motorist. Police obtained a description of the driver and the vehicle and located a vehicle matching the same description. Police cornered the vehicle and drew their firearms, demanding that the driver exit his vehicle. The driver rolled up his windows and did not exit the vehicle for several minutes. Once he exited he was arrested and the vehicle was searched. Police discovered a hidden compartment underneath the steering wheel which contained a loaded handgun and drugs. He was charged with 13 charges including possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. He also faced seven charges with respect to possession of a loaded handgun. The Crown was opposed to K.R.’s release on bail and the matter proceeded to a hearing.

R. v. M.E. [Alberta Provincial Court, Didsbury, February 2018]

M.E. was pulled over driving a vehicle on the highway outside of Didsbury as a consequence of a burnt out tail light. The police ran his information through a computer database and discovered that there was a warrant out for his arrest. They arrested him. As no one (the driver nor the passenger, a 16 year old girl) could produce insurance or registration for the vehicle, it was towed. The police conducted an inventory search of the vehicle prior to towing it and discovered 31 grams of cocaine and 465 grams of marijuana in the trunk. M.E. was arrested for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. M.E. retained Ms. Fagan to defend these charges. If convicted, a lengthy jail term was imminent. Ms. Fagan promptly entered pleas of “not guilty” and scheduled a trial date. Ms. Fagan identified several issues with the police investigation which would make it, in her view, challenging for them to put him in possession of the drugs. In the weeks leading up to trial the Crown, recognizing these issues offered to allow M.E. to plead guilty to the lesser included offence of simple possession and to pay a fine. It meant that M.E. would have a drug conviction entered on his record. Understandably fearful of a jail term M.E. initially wanted to “take the deal” but changed his instructions when Ms. Fagan expressed confidence in her ability to kill the prosecution in its entirety.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was able to kill the prosecution in its entirety. All charges were ultimately withdrawn. M.E. incurred no criminal record.

Mount Royal University Hearing [February 2018]

B.M. was charged with a number of serious offences arising from allegations that he had broken into a Mount Royal Professor’s home (a woman in her 60s) and beat her so severely that both her hands were broken. He was charged with a number of offences including two counts of s. 348(1)(b), break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence. B.M. was a student at Mount Royal in his last semester of study. B.M. received notification from the University that he had been suspended from school and was banned from campus until such time as a hearing was held. He retained Ms. Fagan to represent him with respect to that hearing with the sole goal of being able to complete his final semester of studies and graduate.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan successfully negotiated with the University to have B.M.’s suspension lifted so that he could graduate as scheduled.

R. v. S.P. [Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta and Provincial Court of Alberta, Calgary, January 2018]

The police received information from a confidential informant that S.P. was transporting large amounts of high quality marijuana from British Columbia to Alberta and Saskatchewan. Police investigated the tip by locating S.P. and putting a tracking device on a rental vehicle she had been known to use. Police also conducted a “garbage pull” where they found evidence of marijuana in her discarded trash. Weeks into the investigation police tracked S.P.’s rental vehicle from Calgary to interior BC. After a brief stay the vehicle was en route back east towards Calgary. Police followed the vehicle and eventually located it in a Costco parking lot. She was observed meeting with an unknown male and transferring large garbage bags from her vehicle to his. The police mobilized and arrested both S.P. and the man. They police located approximately half a million dollars’ worth of marijuana and some cash. S.P. faced charges of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking; trafficking in marijuana and possession of proceeds of crime. Ms. Sanders initially retained Patrick Fagan Q.C. for the purpose of conducting the preliminary inquiry and then eventually retained Ms. Fagan for trial. The Crown’s pre-trial resolution offer upon a guilty plea was 2 years federal incarceration. Over the course of nearly four years Ms. Fagan fought to keep S.P. out of jail despite the fact that the allegations in question, if proven true, would call for a lengthy jail sentence.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in keeping S.P. out of jail in exchange for a $5000.00 fine and a term of probation.

2017

R. v. M.J. [Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Calgary, December 2017]

The police initiated an investigation as a result of information received by the police from a confidential source that M.J. was dealing cocaine. After several weeks of surveillance the police believed they had observed multiple drug transactions involving two people, M.J. and a second person, O.M.. Police ultimately executed search warrants at the residence of both M.J. and O.M.. In the residence thought to be M.J.’s the police found two handguns with ammunition and a significant amount of cocaine (crack and powder), marijuana and cash. J.M. was depicted on video keying in and out of the residence a number of times and was arrested leaving the residence.

J.M. retained another lawyer for conduct of the preliminary inquiry and eventually retained Ms. Fagan to defend him at trial. At this time he faced six charges, including three charges relating to the handguns and one count of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. If unsuccessful, M.J. was facing a significant jail sentence. Ms. Fagan’s argument (and M.J.’s fate) hinged on her ability to successfully challenge the search warrant. Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice alleging a breach of his rights as guaranteed by s. 8 of the Charter (his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure). The week before the trial was scheduled to start, M.J.’s co-accused O.M. plead guilty. M.J. continued on to trial and argued that there was an insufficient nexus between M.J. and the residence. After six days of argument on the validity of the search warrant the trial judge ultimately agreed with Ms. Fagan. A breach of s. 8 was established and the items seized (all guns, drugs and cash) were excluded from evidence.

BOTTOM LINE: After six days of trial, Ms. Fagan secured verdicts of “not guilty” on all charges.

R. v. P.J. [Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Calgary, December 2017]

P.J. was charged in Chestemere with a number of charges relating to the alleged discharge of a firearm at a house party. Witnesses claimed that P.J. had been showing off a handgun and then had left the house following an altercation. Witnesses then claimed that P.J. then returned and discharged his firearm at a group outside the house multiple times. Bullets were found lodged in vehicles and homes in the residential neighborhood. P.J. was apprehended by police and charged with nine criminal charges including:

• S. 91(1) of the Criminal Code – unauthorized possession of a firearm

• S. 87 of the Criminal Code – pointing a firearm

• S. 267(a) of the Criminal Code – assault with a weapon

• S. 88 of the Criminal Code – possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace

• S. 85(1)(a) of the Criminal Code – using firearm during commission of offence (which carries with it a mandatory jail sentence)

• S. 90 of the Criminal Code – carrying concealed weapon

His bail hearing was initially held in Strathmore Provincial Court and he was ordered detained by the Provincial Court Judge because of fears that he was an endangerment to the public and that his release would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. (NOTE: Ms. Fagan was not his lawyer for the initial bail hearing where he was ordered detained). P.J. then retained Ms. Fagan to conduct a bail review hearing to argue for his release.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan successfully established that the Provincial Court Judge had made an error and she obtained bail for P.J. on reasonable terms.

R. v. S.K. [Alberta Provincial Court, Lethbridge, December 2017]

The police alleged that S.K. was crossing the border from the USA to Canada in a transport truck containing drugs. S.K. told Canada Border Service Agents (CBSA) that he was transporting fruit from California to Costco in Alberta. CBSA searched the truck and located 17 kilograms (over 37 pounds) of what they believed to be cocaine. S.K. was arrested and charged with importation of cocaine and possession of cocaine, both of which carry up to a life sentence. S.K. retained Ms. Fagan to secure his release from custody.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan put together a compelling bail plan and secured the release of her client within days of his release.

R. v. A.I. [Alberta Provincial Court, Calgary, November 2017]

I.A. was under police surveillance after they received confidential source information that he was selling fentanyl and cocaine. Police observed I.A. engage in what they believed to be two “hand-to-hand” drug transactions and then followed him as he drove away from the scene. Police observed I.A. speeding down Deerfoot trail and periodically opening his car door to vomit. The police conducted a traffic stop of the vehicle and ultimately formed the grounds to arrest I.A. and search the vehicle. In the vehicle the police located 606 of believed to be fentanyl pills, methadone and a significant amount of cash. A warrant to search I.A.’s residence was obtained and upon execution the police located further drugs, money and body armour. I.A. was charged with eleven charges including:

Section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act – Possession of fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking

Section 88(1) of the Criminal Code—possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace

Section 354 of the Criminal Code – possession of proceeds of crime.

Ms. Fagan entered pleas of ‘not guilty’ to all charges. The matter was scheduled for a seven day trial in Provincial Court. Ms. Fagan alleged the breach of her client’s right to make full answer and defence as a consequence of the Crown’s failure to disclose a number of items she had requested. She filed a Charter notice and was prepared to proceed to trial.

BOTTOM LINE: Ostensibly acknowledging the merit of Ms. Fagan’s position, the Crown entered a stay of proceedings (i.e. withdrew all charges) days before the trial was scheduled to commence.

R. v. A.J. [Alberta Provincial Court, Calgary, October 2017]

Police received information that A.J. was trafficking in cocaine. On the basis of that information they began investigating A.J. and conducting extensive surveillance on him. They were able to identify his residence using police records, and observed the individual they believed to be A.J. entering and exiting the house on several occasions. They also observed him in meets of short duration including several “hand to hand transactions”. The police ultimately sought a search warrant for the residence. When the police searched the residence they found approximately 190 grams of cocaine, 110 grams of marijuana, scales, packaging materials, fentanyl, cash and a handgun and  a loaded 22 caliber rifle in a toddler’s bedroom. A.J. was arrested and charged along with his brother A.H.. A.J. faced 10 charges including possession of cocaine, marijuana and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime and 6 counts relating to the firearms. Ms. Fagan entered not guilty pleas on all charges and scheduled a week-long trial.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in convincing the Crown that the Crown would not be able to prove the identity of her client beyond a reasonable doubt as the police had appeared to have struggled to differentiate between her client and his brother. All charges were stayed (ie. withdrawn) and A.J. incurred no criminal record.

R. v. S.A. [Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Calgary, September 2017]

911 dispatchers received a call from a woman screaming that her son and husband had been stabbed to death. Police, EMS and Calgary Fire arrived to confront a nightmarish scene. Three men were found with multiple stab wounds in the basement of a residential home, one partially disembowelled. Two of the men were deceased, one (the accused) was alive but suffered significant injuries. Witnesses told the police that the accused was the aggressor and he was arrested and charged with two counts of second degree murder under section 235 of the Criminal Code. The Crown sought the denial of S.A.’s bail and his detention in custody.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan sought, and obtained her client’s release on reasonable terms.

R. v. A.S. [Alberta Provincial Court, Calgary, September 2017]

A.S. faced a multitude of charges and was out on bail on several matters. In June, 2017 he was arrested following a lengthy undercover investigation. Police alleged that A.S. had sold cocaine to a police officer on 6 different occasions. The police obtained a search warrant and seized a loaded firearm, 91 grams of cocaine and 58 fentanyl tabs from a residence associated to A.S. When A.S. was arrested he was allegedly holding a bag containing 65.4 grams of crack cocaine, 58 fentanyl pills and $6300 cash. Ms. Fagan obtained his release on bail. Two weeks later he was arrested again for breaching his bail conditions. Ms. Fagan again obtained his release on bail. Two months later A.S. was arrested for allegedly selling cocaine to another undercover police officer. He was arrested for trafficking cocaine (again).

BOTTOM LINE: Notwithstanding that the odds were stacked against the defence, and the Crown was vehemently opposed to release, Ms. Fagan was able to secure A.S.’s release on bail for the third time in a span in 3 months.

R. v. B.K. [Provincial Court, Calgary, July 2017]

The police were undergoing a murder investigation when they discovered a group of young men that they believed to be trafficking cocaine in the City of Calgary at the kilogram level. The organization was believed to be operating at a sophisticated level and the police conducted surveillance and extensive wiretaps to build a case against B.K. and three other young men. Ultimately the police executed more than a dozen warrants at multiple residences and of multiple vehicles discovering a significant amount of cocaine, marijuana, hundreds of thousands of dollars and various weapons including guns. The week before his arrest the police allegedly purchased cocaine from B.K. on three separate occasions. On “take down” day, B.K. was arrested with approximately 60 grams cocaine packaged in dozens of small baggies and a significant amount of cash in his vehicle. B.K. was initially charged with the three other young men with over 71 offences which included:

Section 467.11 of the Criminal Code — Participate in or contribute to the activities of a criminal organization

Section 465(1)(C)  — Conspiracy to commit the offence of trafficking in cocaine

Section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act – Possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking

B.K. faced some of the most serious charges in the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, many of which were punishable by life in prison. B.K.’s only goal from the outset of the prosecution against him was to avoid being sent to jail. With this in mind, Ms. Fagan elected to proceed by way of Queen’s Bench Judge and Judge, with a preliminary inquiry. A four week preliminary inquiry was scheduled and over 40 witnesses were called by the Crown Prosecutor during this time. At the conclusion of the preliminary inquiry Ms. Fagan was successful in killing all but seven of the charges against her client. A seven week trial in Queen’s Bench was scheduled for the trial of the seven charges against her client and other charges relating to the three co-accuseds. Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice attacking the search warrants and arguing that his right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated.

BOTTOM LINE: Weeks before the commencement of the seven week trial the Crown agreed with Ms. Fagan that there were significant Charter issues and made B.K. an offer that he could not refuse. B.K. pleaded guilty to only three of the charges and received a conditional sentence of two years less a day to be served in the community (i.e. no jail time).

R. v. G.S. [Provincial Court, Cochrane, July 2017]

The truck driven by G.S. was seen swerving on the highway outside of Cochrane. The police stopped the vehicle and G.S. admitted to drinking. He was asked to provide a roadside sample of his breath. The in-car video system captured G.S. slurring his words, swearing and making several unsuccessful attempts to provide a breath sample. G.S. was charged with impaired driving, refusing to provide a breath sample and two traffic tickets for having an uninsured vehicle and no registration. Ms. Fagan noticed defects in the charging document and was ultimately successful in having the two criminal charges and the no registration ticket withdrawn in exchange for a guilty plea to the traffic ticket for having no vehicle insurance.

BOTTOM LINE: G.S. received the mandatory minimum fine for the traffic ticket and all criminal charges were withdrawn. G.S.’s driver’s license was reinstated immediately.

R. v. W.D. [Provincial Court, Calgary, June 2017]

W.D. was charged in a complex fraud investigation involving two complainants where the total losses alleged were approximately half a million dollars. W.D. had (unwisely) given a full confession to the police. Prior to trial the Crown took a firm position that it would ask for a lengthy federal penitentiary sentence (in the range of 3-4 years) whether the charges were resolved prior to trial or whether W.D. was convicted following trial. Ms. Fagan scheduled the matter for a 5 day trial. Following pre-trial applications the Crown very generously offered D.W. a conditional sentence order (i.e. house arrest, no jail) if he agreed to plead guilty. Ms. Fagan presented the resolution option to her D.W. along with a second option that they “go for broke” and argue that the Crown had failed to meet their disclosure obligations and therefore violated his section 7 Charter right to make full answer and defence. W.D. chose the second option.

BOTTOM LINE: The matter ultimately proceeded to the scheduled six day trial and Ms. Fagan was successful in securing a stay of proceeding on all charges (i.e. charges were withdrawn, W.D. incurred no criminal record).

R. v. D.J. [Provincial Court, Calgary, June 2017]

D.J. was observed by police slowing down to 10 km/hr in a vehicle traveling on a major road in Calgary. She was pulled over and she told the police that she had been drinking wine at a friend’s house. She failed the roadside breath test and was arrested. She later gave two samples of her breath that were analyzed at double the legal limit. Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice alleging that the police breached her client’s right to counsel before taking breath samples from her and that because of this the breath samples should be excluded from evidence. Ms. Fagan argued that while the police had provided D.J. with access to a lawyer, they had not given her access to a criminal lawyer. Ms. Fagan was able to secure a trial date for her client less than 3 months after her arrest.

BOTTOM LINE: On the morning of trial Ms. Fagan convinced the Crown of the weaknesses in its case and the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges against D.J.

R. v. M.F. [Provincial Court, Calgary, June 2017]

The police observed M.F. driving with heavy damage to the driver side of his vehicle and was stopped. The police smelled marijuana and could see a plastic sandwich bag in the center console with marijuana “shake” visible from within in. M.F. was arrested for possession of marijuana and searched.  While he was being searched a bag of cocaine was found in his pocket and a second bag fell to the sidewalk. He was charged with simple of possession of marijuana and of cocaine, contrary to section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

BOTTOM LINE: Only a month and a half after F.M. was charged Ms. Fagan was successful in having his matter diverted to the Alternative Measures Program. The Crown Prosecutor agreed to withdraw all criminal charges against F.M. in exchange for 60 hours of community service.

R. v. M.A. [Provincial Court, Airdrie, April 2017]

M.A. was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit. The breath test revealed that M.A. had a blood alcohol level of 2.5 times the legal limit. The earliest date that the Court could hear M.A.’s trial was just shy of a year after she was charged. As M.A. was subject to an Alberta Administrative Driver’s License Suspension while awaiting trial this was an excessive delay and was interfering with M.A.’s ability to make a living. Ms. Fagan promptly brought the matter into Court several months before the proposed trial date and argued that her client’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated. This was a novel argument on a point that had not yet been dealt with in reported case law.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan was successful in having her client’s charges stayed (i.e. withdrawn) and her driver’s license re-instated months before she would have been able to proceed to trial. Believing that the Trial Judge had made a mistake, the Crown initially sought to appeal the decision to a higher court, but that appeal was ultimately abandoned.

R. v. L.G. [Alberta Court of Appeal, Calgary, April 2017]

L.G. retained Ms. Fagan to defend a Crown appeal from sentence. L.G. had been previously represented by other counsel (not Ms. Fagan). He had entered a guilty plea to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act – possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and received a conditional sentence order (i.e. a period of house arrest with no jail time). The police had conducted an investigation which culminated in the seizure of more than 4.5 kilograms of marijuana, a loaded handgun and nearly $100,000.00 in Canadian currency. L.G. had previously been convicted of the same offence and had already received a conditional sentence order. At the time he was arrested on the second set of charges he was bound by a condition not to possess any firearms. The Crown had argued at sentencing that L.G. should not receive a conditional sentence order because he had re-offended after his last conditional sentence order for the same criminal conduct. The sentencing Justice disagreed with the Crown and instead granted the conditional sentence order that was sought by L.G.’s lawyer. The Crown argued on appeal that the sentencing Justice had committed an error of law, that the sentence imposed was not a fit sentence and that it did not adequately address denunciation and deterrence. The Crown asked the Court of Appeal to instead impose a sentence of actual jail time. Ms. Fagan argued that it was a fit sentence and that the Court of Appeal should defer to the decision of the sentencing Justice.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan successfully defending the Crown’s appeal and the Court of Appeal declined to interfere with the sentencing Justice’s decision to grant a conditional sentence order. In other words, L.G. did not have to go to jail and remained in the community.

R. v. B.S. [Provincial Court, Fort McLeod, March 2017]

B.S. was charged with impaired driving and refusal to provide a breath sample. A concerned motorist contacted the police to report that a transport truck was all over the road and had nearly caused several accidents. She believed the driver to be impaired. The police conducted a traffic stop, made inquiries and arrested B.S. for impaired driving. He was brought back to the police detachment to give breath samples. B.S.’s first language was not English and he insisted on having an interpreter present and that he would not provide a sample until that time. According to the police, they provided him an interpreter at which point B.S. faked a seizure to avoid giving breath samples. He was charged with refusal/ failure to provide a breath sample. B.S. required his driver’s license to make a living and was subject to the Provincial driver’s license suspension. Ms. Fagan sought permission from the Court to schedule a “special sitting” so that the trial could be heard as soon as possible. Additionally, Ms. Fagan made several requests for disclosure from the Crown that by the trial date had gone unanswered. At trial, Ms. Fagan argued that she could not proceed to trial without the disclosure requested and that it would unfair to her client if the matter was rescheduled so that the Crown could provide the disclosure that ought to have been provided already.

BOTTOM LINE: Ms. Fagan provided extensive written materials to the Judge, who ultimately ruled in her favor by staying (i.e. withdrawing) the charges against her client. B.S.’s license was reinstated immediately and he did not incur a criminal record for the impaired driving or refusal charges.

R. v. P.J. [Provincial Court, Regina Saskatchewan, March 2017]

P.J. was charged on three separate files. First, he was charged with two counts of breaching his bail conditions (curfew and no alcohol) when he was allegedly found passed out in the driver’s seat of his vehicle late at night at a gas station. Second, he was charged with dangerous driving, evading police and breaching his bail condition to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. A high speed chase through the streets of Regina involving several police officers took place, which culminated in the arrest of P.J. Third, P.J. was charged with possession of a concealed weapon (a collapsible baton) and two counts of breaching his bail conditions. Ms. Fagan scheduled all three matters for trial.

BOTTOM LINE: Midway through her cross-examination of the first police witness in the first trial the Crown (who had previously been unwilling to resolve the matter for anything less than a significant penalty and criminal record) offered to withdraw all criminal charges against P.J. in exchange for him completing community service hours. No criminal record was incurred whatsoever for the three separate prosecutions that P.J. hired Ms. Fagan to defend.

R. v. R.K. [Provincial Court, Cochrane, February 2017]

R.K. was pulled over on a highway just outside of Cochrane after police saw her vehicle swerving just after 3:00am. Police smelled alcohol on R.K.’s breath and arrested her for impaired driving. She was taken to the police detachment where she provided samples of her breath that were almost triple the legal limit. Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice arguing that R.K.’s right to full disclosure and her right to make full answer and defence were violated. She further argued that the police lacked the required reasonable grounds to demand a sample of her breath, and that therefore the breath samples that were taken from her should not be admitted into evidence.

BOTTOM LINE: The Crown agreed with Ms. Fagan and entered a stay of proceedings (i.e. withdrew) all charges against R.K. Her license was reinstated that day and she incurred no criminal record for the charges that she had hired Ms. Fagan to defend.

R. v. R.J. [Provincial Court, Medicine Hat, February 2017]

R.J. was pulled over outside of Brooks for a minor traffic infraction. During the course of their interaction with R.J. they discovered that he had a drug related criminal record and that he had recently been arrested for possession of proceeds of crime (approximately $75,000.00 cash was found in a bag in his vehicle a few months prior). A condition of his bail when he was released on that charge was he not leave the Province of Saskatchewan. The police arrested him for breaching his bail conditions and searched his vehicle. Police located approximately $82,000.00 cash in a bag in the backseat of the vehicle along with a small amount of marijuana and approximately 5g of what they believed to be cocaine.  R.J. was charged with two counts of breaching his bail conditions contrary to section 145(3) of the Criminal Code, two counts of simple possession contrary to section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and possession of proceeds of crime contrary to section 354 of the Criminal Code. Ms. Fagan took the position that the police had unlawfully seized her client’s money and that he was not only entitled to be acquitted (i.e. found not guilty) but that the Court should order that the police return his money. The trial was scheduled for 3 days and the Crown indicated that he would be asking for a significant jail sentence if R.J. was convicted. Ms. Fagan made a number of Charter arguments, including that the police deliberately muted the in-car video recording and destroyed evidence and that they unlawfully searched the vehicle.

BOTTOM LINE: The Trial Judge agreed with Ms. Fagan and criticized the police. On the last day of trial R.J. was found not guilty of all charges and his money was directed returned by the Judge.

R. v. A.T. [Provincial Court, Calgary January 2017]

A.T. retained Ms. Fagan to defend ten serious criminal charges stemming from the police search of a vehicle that A.T. had been driving. In the center console of the vehicle the police located a handgun, methamphetamine, cocaine, crack cocaine, marijuana and a significant amount of cash. A.T. with the following offences, including:

Section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act – Possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking

Section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act – Possession of methamphetamine (“meth”) for the purposes of trafficking

Section 354 of the Criminal Code – Possession of proceeds of crime

Section 86(1) of the Criminal Code – Possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace

Section 91(1) of the Criminal Code – Possession of a firearm with a license

Section 129 of the Criminal Code – Obstruction of justice

Ms. Fagan alleged that there were significant breaches of her client’s Charter rights including breaches of his right to make full answer and defence, his right to a fair trial, his right to be tried within a reasonable time, his right not be arbitrarily detained and his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. This matter was scheduled for trial twice.

BOTTOM LINE: On the first day of the second scheduled trial date the Crown conceded the strength of Ms. Fagan’s Charter position and entered a stay of proceedings on all charges (i.e. all charges against A.T. were withdrawn).

2016

R. v. P.K. [Provincial Court, Strathmore, November 2016]

A concerned civilian noticed a vehicle driving erratically and narrowly colliding with other vehicles and a cyclist and called 911. The civilian followed the vehicle for approximately 15 minutes detailed his observations to 911 dispatch. The vehicle (allegedly driven by P.K.) rear ended another vehicle so hard that the hood of P.K.’s vehicle curled up over his front windshield. Instead of stopping to exchange particulars and render assistance as he was legally required to do, P.K. allegedly drove through a ditch and sped away. By running the license plate of the vehicle the police determined where P.K.’s residence was and set up there to await his arrival. A short time later the same vehicle described by the civilian rounded the corner with the hood wrapped over the windshield and P.K. hanging out the driver’s side window. P.K. admitted he had been drinking and police observed an empty bottle of hard liquor in the passenger footwell. P.K. failed the roadside test and was arrested. Once breath samples were provided at the police station it was determined that P.K. was driving with a blood alcohol level alleged to be twice the legal limit. Police also conducted a search of his vehicle and allegedly found marijuana. P.K. was charged with dangerous driving, failing to remain at the scene of an accident, impaired driving, driving with a blood alcohol level over 0.08 and possession of marijuana. This was a tough case and there were few (if any) angles on paper. Notwithstanding, on the day of trial Ms. Fagan secured the withdrawal of all criminal charges against her client in exchange for a fine under the Traffic Safety Act. P.K. received no criminal record for the charges that he hired Ms. Fagan to defend and no driving prohibition.

R. v. A.I. [Court of Queen’s Bench & Provincial Court, Calgary, March 2016 and October 2016]

Police had been conducting an undercover surveillance operation for several weeks in relation to allegations of trafficking in fentanyl. Over the course of the investigation police observed A.I. engage in activity that they characterized as consistent with drug trafficking. In the course of their surveillance A.I. was apparently seen vomiting at the side of the of a busy road. The police seized on the opportunity to arrest A.I. for impaired driving and searched his vehicle. They conducted a search of the vehicle and discovered what they alleged was 606 fentanyl pills, 190ml of methadone, a scale, cash and three cell phones. A.I. was charged with possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking (among other things). A search warrant for the residence believed to be associated to A.I. was searched and multiple sets of body armor, along with additional fentanyl pills were found. A.I. was detained in Provincial Court (note: he was not represented by Ms. Fagan at this stage). Ms. Fagan brought an application for review in Queen’s Bench and ultimately secured A.I.’s release on bail. Several months later the police conducted another search of A.I.’s residence in response to a complaint that he was keeping drugs in the home. The police allegedly found fentanyl and A.I. was arrested once again. Despite the odds, Ms. Fagan was able to secure A.I.’s release in Provincial Court.

R. v. R.J. [Court of Queen’s Bench, Calgary, October 2016]

R.J. was pulled over near Lake Louise after a police computer check determined that he was driving without registration or insurance. Police noticed the smell of a “masking agent” (cologne); that R.J. was traveling to a “source” province for marijuana (i.e. British Columbia) and through computer checks determined that he had a conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. R.J. apparently presented as extremely nervous, which heightened the suspicion of the police that he was transporting contraband of some kind. The police formed the ostensible grounds to detain R.J. and deployed a drug detection dog who indicated the presence of the odor of drugs. The police arrested R.J. and searched the vehicle. Police allegedly located 0.01 grams of marijuana and approximately $75,000.00 in Canadian currency. R.J. was arrested for possession of proceeds of crime and simple possession of marijuana. Ms. Fagan was successful in securing a stay of proceedings before trial (i.e. she ended the criminal prosecution against R.J. no criminal convictions were entered).

R. v. L.D. [Provincial Court, Calgary, October 2016]

The police received a phone call from an anonymous caller about a woman high on heroin driving a stolen vehicle and following another stolen vehicle. The police tracked the woman to a pizza parlour where she was seen standing in her underwear eating pizza with a male. The male (L.D.) allegedly had three throwing knives visible on his belt and was arrested for possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. He was searched incident to arrest and the police found what they believed to be counterfeit currency. A vehicle parked in the lot in front of the pizza parlour was determined to belong the L.D. and was searched by police. Police located a loaded sawed off revolver, and a number of items that the police believed to be stolen. L.D. was charged with 13 charges including 5 very serious firearm offences; possession of counterfeit currency (punishable by up to 14 years in prison); and a number of possession of stolen property charges. The Crown’s pre-trial resolution position was 2 years of federal incarceration. L.D. wisely instructed Ms. Fagan to proceed to trial. The trial was scheduled for 4 days. Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice alleging multiple breaches of L.D.’s rights, including his right not to be arbitrarily detained, his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. After four days of a hard fought trial Ms. Fagan had done sufficient damage to the Crown’s case that the Crown made L.D. an offer he could not refuse. A fine of $500.00 was imposed for possession of the knives and all remaining charges were withdrawn. L.D. did not have to spend a single day in jail after trial… a far cry from the initial 2 year pre-trial sentence that L.D. would have faced.

R. v. G.C./ Q.M. [Provincial Court, Calgary, September 2016]

Police observed a suspicious vehicle and ran the license plate through their computer system. According to the police the registered owner came back as wanted for murder. The police immediately pulled the vehicle over and arrested the two occupants. A search of the vehicle was conducted incident to arrest and the police allegedly located seven cell phones; a knife on the driver; cash; bear spray; 1.2 kilograms of cocaine and 250g of marijuana. G.C. and Q.M. were arrested for possession of marijuana and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking; possession of proceeds of crime; and possession of a concealed weapon. Ms. Fagan secured bail for both G.C. and Q.M.

R. v. S.J. [Provincial Court, Yellowknife, September 2016]

S.J. retained Ms. Fagan to defend 11 charges including sexual assault, uttering threats, unlawful confinement and assault. Ms. Fagan attended in Yellowknife to conduct the preliminary inquiry and S.J. was discharged on 9 of the 11 charges (meaning that only two remaining charges would tried by a jury). Ultimately Ms. Fagan was successful in securing a stay of proceedings on the two remaining charges before trial.

R. v. S.D. [Court of Queen’s Bench, Calgary, September 2016]

S.D. was driving a vehicle outside of Lake Louise and was pulled over by the police for (apparently) weaving in his lane of traffic multiple times. The police detected the smell of marijuana and proceeded to search S.D.’s vehicle allegedly discovering over 5 kilograms of marijuana and 4 tubs of marijuana honey. S.D. was charged with possession of marijuana in excess of 3 kilograms for the purpose of trafficking and simple possession of marijuana (the honey). A few weeks prior to his arrest S.D. had been pulled over by the police and was found to be in lawful possession of 2 kilograms of marijuana pursuant to a medical marijuana license which allowed him to possess same. Ms. Fagan’s position was that the police knew he would be in possession of marijuana at the time they conducted a traffic stop and that the police were using the Traffic Safety Act to conduct a drug investigation thus rendering the entire exchange between police and S.D. unconstitutional. The Crown was convinced of same and a stay of proceedings was entered (i.e. the termination of the prosecution against S.D.). Ms. Fagan secured the return of approximately 2 kilograms of marijuana to S.D.

R. v. B.R. [Court of Queen’s Bench, Calgary, April 2016]

B.R. was a passenger in a vehicle traveling on the Trans-Canada highway. Two highway patrol men conducted a so-called “Checkstop” for sobriety on the vehicle and ultimately formed the grounds to search the vehicle. B.R. and the driver of the vehicle were questioned and imprisoned in the back of the police vehicle. Computer checks were conducted revealing that both the driver and B.R. had prior drug convictions. A drug detection dog was deployed who did not indicate that he smelled the presence of the smell drugs. The police then released a second drug detection drug who (according to them) did indicate the presence of the smell of drugs, and the police took it upon themselves to search the vehicle. Police discovered multiple cell phones and 22 lbs of marijuana in the trunk of the vehicle. Ms. Fagan was successful in having all charges withdrawn against her client before trial.

R. v. B.A. [Provincial Court, Calgary, April 2016]

B.A. was charged with trafficking cocaine, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime. The Calgary Police Service initiated a large scale drug investigation involving a cocaine trafficking ring that B.A. was alleged to be a part of. An undercover police officer allegedly met with B.A. and purchase several grams of cocaine. The undercover officer paid for the cocaine with several marked bills. B.A. left the scene and was followed and ultimately arrested. The vehicle he was travelling in was searched incident to arrest and further cocaine was located. The marked bills were allegedly found in his pocket. Ms. Fagan was the third lawyer that B.A. had retained to defend this matter. Ultimately, Ms. Fagan secured a stay of proceedings for her client on all charges (i.e. ended the prosecution against him and B.A. received no criminal convictions).

R. v. C.C. [Provincial Court, Airdrie, April 2016]

C.C. was criminally charged with impaired care and control of a vehicle; failing to provide a sample of her breath; and failing to stop at the scene of an accident. At approximately 4:00am the police responded to a call of a motor vehicle collision. The police found C.C. allegedly slurring her speech, unbalanced, unable to form logical sentences and her breath smelled like alcohol. She was arrested on the scene, taken to the police station and alleged to have failed to provide samples of her breath (which carries the same penalty as impaired driving).  The matter proceeded to trial and the Crown ultimately withdrew the impaired driving charge and the refusal charge in the middle of Ms. Fagan’s cross-examination of the Crown’s main witness. The Crown proceeded to argue for a conviction on the charge of failing to remain at the scene of the accident. Ms. Fagan successfully argued that the Crown had not proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt.  C.C. was acquitted of all criminal charges.

R. v. G.A. [Provincial Court, Calgary, March 2016]

G.A. was out at a popular bar in Calgary consuming alcohol. It was alleged that she got into an altercation with another female and threw a pint glass at her face shattering her front two teeth. G.A. was charged with assault with a weapon and hired Ms. Fagan with a single goal in mind: to walk away without a criminal record. Ms. Fagan successfully argued that this was out of character for her client and that the public interest would be not be offended if a conviction was not entered. The presiding Judge agreed with Ms. Fagan and G.A. received a conditional discharge (i.e. no criminal record.)

R. v. B.M. [Court of Queen’s Bench, Calgary, February, 2016]

B.M. was driving just outside of Lake Louise when he was pulled over by police for weaving in his lane of traffic. The police (embarking on an obvious drug investigation) questioned B.M. about his purpose for travel and where he was going to/from. A computer check was conducted revealing that B.M. had multiple drug convictions. The police ultimately formed the grounds to deploy a drug detection dog who indicated the presence of drugs in the vehicle. The police searched the vehicle and allegedly found approximately 10 pounds of marijuana. B.M. was charged with possession of marijuana in excess of 3 kilograms for the purpose of trafficking. B.M. elected trial in Queen’s Bench with a preliminary inquiry. His trial was scheduled to be heard nearly two years after his arrest. On the first day of trial the Crown attempted to adjourn (ie. delay the trial to a later date) the commencement of the trial until its main witness recovered from an illness. Ms. Fagan opposed the delay and argued that the trial should go ahead. The presiding Judge agreed with Ms. Fagan and the Crown was unable to prove its case without the ill witness. All charges against B.M. were completely withdrawn.

R. v. K.L. [Provincial Court, Cochrane, January 2016]

In the early morning hours police received a call of an impaired driver that was allegedly all over the road. The police tracked down the vehicle that was the subject of the complaint and discovered it has been in an accident. K.L. allegedly displayed signs of impairment and was asked to provide a sample of his breath into a roadside device. K.L. provided a sample and failed the roadside test. He was arrested and subsequently provided two breath samples which showed that his blood alcohol was over the legal limit. Ms. Fagan secured the withdrawal of all charges before trial and the reinstatement of K.L.’s license.

R. v. H.B. [Provincial Court, Calgary, January 2016]

H.B. was charged with aggravated assault (one step below manslaughter) and unlawfully strangling someone with the intent to commit an indictable offence. The allegations arose in a domestic context and the complainant allegedly received a broken collarbone which required 2 surgeries and multiple pins to repair. Ms. Fagan was able to secure the withdrawal of all charges at preliminary inquiry.

R. v. S.C. [Court of Queen’s Bench, Calgary, December 2016]

S.C. was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped just outside of Lake Louise. The police claimed to have stopped the vehicle because they could not see if the passenger, who was reclined, was wearing his seatbelt properly. The police ultimately formed the ostensible grounds to search the vehicle and found a hockey bag with 30 pounds of marijuana in it. The police arrested the driver and S.C. and when the searched S.C. they discovered a vial of hash oil in his pocket. S.C. was charged, among other things, with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Ms. Fagan filed an extensive Charter notice alleging breaches of her client’s rights including his right to full disclosure; that the initial traffic stop was arbitrary; that the questioning of her client amounted to a unlawful search and that the search of the vehicle was warrantless and unreasonable.

BOTTOM LINE: Weeks before trial the Crown, seeing the strength of the Charter arguments, entered a stay of proceedings (i.e. withdrew) all charges against S.C.

2015

R. v. W.J. [Provincial Court, Calgary, October 2015]

W.J. was arrested in the security line at the Calgary Airport with a loaded handgun in his carry-on bag. He admitted to a border services agent that the gun was his. He was charged under both the Criminal Code and the Aeronautics Act. W.J. was a resident of Texas and was in Canada for a few days on business. The Crown asked the Judge to deny W.J. bail because there was no guarantee that he would return to Canada to deal with the charges if he was allowed to return to the USA. The Crown also emphasized how serious the offence was and the terrible consequences that could have ensued from a loaded gun on a plane. Ms. Fagan provided the Judge with a comprehensive plan of release along with letters of support and argued that the Crown’s case against her client was weak. The Judge agreed with Ms. Fagan that W.J. was releasable, released him on bail and allowed him to return to the USA.

R. v. J.M. [Provincial Court, Calgary, September 2015]

In the early hours of the morning the police were dispatched to a check on welfare call of a person who had fallen asleep at the wheel of his vehicle at a stoplight. On arrival the police ordered J.M. out of the vehicle and, in doing so, detected the smell of marijuana, a scale, packaging materials, a significant amount of cash and multiple cell phones. J.M. was arrested for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime. Ms. Fagan filed a detailed Charter notice alleging breaches of J.M.’s right to counsel and his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, following which all charges were completely withdrawn prior to trial.

R. v. B.C. [Provincial Court, Strathmore, September 2015]

B.C. was pulled over by the police on the Trans-Canada Highway for allegedly talking on a cell phone. The police detected the smell of marijuana and ultimately searched the vehicle discovering close to 10 lbs of marijuana, multiple cell phones and packaging materials. Both B.C. and the passenger of the vehicle were charged with possession of marijuana in an amount exceeding 3 kilograms. Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice alleging a breach of her client’s right not to be arbitrarily detained, his right not to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure. A unique and unforeseen evidentiary issue arose in the course of trial and Ms. Fagan seized on the opportunity, arguing that the Crown could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the leafy green substance seized was in fact marijuana. After three days of trial Ms. Fagan was successful in securing a verdict of “not guilty” for her client.

R. v. L.D. [Provincial Court, Calgary, September 2015]

L.D. was charged with possession of a firearm along with possession of a stolen vehicle. He was released on bail and breached his conditions 6 weeks later. He was re-released on bail again and then allegedly breached his conditions a second time by being in possession of stolen property as well as break-in tools. L.D. initially did not hire a lawyer. After approximately a month in custody, L.D. hired Ms. Fagan to secure his bail on an expedited basis because he had been severely injured in custody. Ms. Fagan mobilized quickly and secured L.D.’s release on reasonable terms.

R. v. N.R. [Arrest Processing Unit, Calgary, September 2015]

N.R. had been previously arrested on three separate drug matters involving (among other things) substantial amounts of crack cocaine. He was detained for several months and eventually a Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench released him on extremely strict bail conditions which included 24/7 house arrest with no exceptions. When released N.R. was cautioned that if he violated his bail conditions even in the slightest degree that he would remain in jail until trial. Within months of his release N.R. was arrested by police several blocks from his home. Ms. Fagan successfully secured his release within 24 hours of his arrest.

R. v. H.B. [Provincial Court, Calgary, August 2015]

R. v. H.B. [Provincial Court, Calgary, August 2015] – H.B. was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample, resisting arrest and breaching his bail conditions. At the time of his arrest, H.B. was out on bail for an alleged domestic assault and which included the condition that he was not to consume alcohol. The police pulled over a vehicle driven by H.B. and believed him to be impaired. He was given several opportunities to provide a sample of his breath and did not do so. The police tried to place him under arrest and alleged that he resisted by pulling away. Over the course of two days of trial Ms. Fagan cross-examined several police witnesses at length endeavoring to undermine their testimony and raise a reasonable doubt. She was ultimately successful in this regard and verdicts of not guilty were rendered on the refusal charge and the obstruction charge. In the course of the trial H.B. admitted to consuming alcohol contrary to his bail conditions and he was found guilty of breaching his “no alcohol” condition. Ms. Fagan continued to fight for her client and argued that no criminal record should be entered. The trial judge was convinced and granted a conditional discharge with respect to the breach charge (ie. H.B. walked away from this trial with no criminal record of any kind).

R. v. A.T. [Provincial Court, Calgary, July 2015]

While out on bail for obstructing a police officer, A.T. was observed by police helicopter (HAWC) operating a vehicle that was alleged to be connected to a shooting that occurred the day prior. A warrant was obtained and the vehicle was searched revealing a stolen handgun, cash, cocaine, marijuana and ecstasy in the centre console. A.T. was charged with a number of weapons offences as well as possession of cocaine and ecstasy for the purpose of trafficking, proceeds of crime and simple possession of marijuana. A.T. was released on bail conditions in June 2015 and (unbeknownst to him) police continued to conduct surveillance of him for the month following his release. Police observed A.T. involved in a number of suspicious activities. He was allegedly seen out past his curfew and repeatedly lied to his probation officer about possessing a cell phone, notwithstanding that the police had video surveillance of him texting/ speaking on a cell phone on multiple occasions. When he was arrested A.T. was alleged to have in his possession 3 cell phones and approximately $1500.00 cash. The Crown revoked his previous bail and argued that he should be detained pending trial. Ms. Fagan successfully secured A.T.’s release on bail within 48 hours of his arrest.

R. v. W.C. [Arrest Processing, Medicine Hat, July 2015]

W.C. was arrested on a Friday afternoon and hired Ms. Fagan to secure his release on bail. He was arrested on charges of fraud, theft and breach of his bail conditions. At the time he hired Ms. Fagan for bail he was out on three separate sets of bail conditions stemming from a fraud investigation; a number of breaches and trafficking crack cocaine to an undercover police officer. The police were opposed to W.C.’s release emphasizing that W.C. had a previous criminal record and that he was likely to re-offend given that he was already out on bail for other charges. Ms. Fagan successfully argued that W.C. was not a flight risk nor was there a substantial likelihood of him re-offending. W.C. was released by Friday night.

R. v. C.W. [Provincial Court, Calgary, July 2015]

C.W. was charged with the serious offence of robbery. C.W. was alleged to have driven a youth into a secluded area and robbed him, leaving the youth at the side of the road. When arrested, C.W. gave a full confession. If convicted after trial C.W. faced a jail term. The Crown’s initial resolution offer was a jail sentence of several months. Through lengthy negotiations with the Crown Ms. Fagan was able to have the charge reduced to theft under $5,000. Strategically, this put her in a position to argue that a criminal record should not be imposed in the circumstances. In the end, C.W. received a conditional discharge and no criminal record.

R. v. W.J. [Provincial Court, Calgary, October 2015]

W.J. was arrested in the security line at the Calgary Airport with a loaded handgun in his carry-on bag. He admitted to a border services agent that the gun was his. He was charged under both the Criminal Code and the Aeronautics Act. W.J. was a resident of Texas and was in Canada for a few days on business. The Crown asked the Judge to deny W.J. bail because there was no guarantee that he would return to Canada to deal with the charges if he was allowed to return to the USA. The Crown also emphasized how serious the offence was and the terrible consequences that could have ensued from a loaded gun on a plane. Ms. Fagan provided the Judge with a comprehensive plan of release along with letters of support and argued that the Crown’s case against her client was weak. The Judge agreed with Ms. Fagan that W.J. was releasable, released him on bail and allowed him to return to the USA.

R. v. J.J. [Provincial Court, Didsbury, May 2015]

J.J. was the driver and registered owner of a vehicle transporting three other males. The vehicle was pulled over, the police detected the smell of marijuana and arrested J.J. along with the other three occupants. Along with cocaine and marijuana approximately $1000.00 was found, as well as multiple cellphones and a scale. J.J. was charged with possession of both cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking as well as simple possession of cocaine and marijuana. Ms. Fagan was successful in having all charges against J.J. withdrawn without J.J. ever having to step foot in a courtroom.

R. v. J.T. [Provincial Court, Calgary, April 2015]

J.T. was charged with impaired driving, driving while her blood alcohol was over the legal limit and possession of marijuana. Police observed damage to the vehicle being driven by J.T. as she swerved in and out of traffic. Police arrested J.T. who then admitted she had been drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana. Marijuana was located in the vehicle. J.T.’s blood alcohol level was determined to be well in excess of the legal limit. Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice alleging breaches of J.T.’s right not to be arbitrarily detained and her right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The Crown conceded Ms. Fagan’s position and withdrew all charges against J.T..

R. v. F.M. [Provincial Court, Rocky Mountain House, March 2015]

F.M. was charged with trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. A warrant was obtained and executed on F.M.’s residence where police found approximately 10 grams of cocaine. F.M. was arrested and provided a full confession to trafficking in cocaine and possessing the cocaine found in her residence (all of which was audio-video recorded). Despite the fact that F.M. had no criminal record, the Crown’s bottom line resolution offer was one year incarceration. Ms. Fagan filed a Charter notice alleging several breaches of F.M.’s rights- including her right to counsel and her right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The matter proceeded to trial and partway through Ms. Fagan’s cross-examination of a key police witness the Crown threw in the proverbial towel and agreed to withdraw the two very serious charges of trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking in exchange for a guilty plea to a single count of simple possession and a fine of $2000.00 and no jail time.

R. v. G.C. [Provincial Court, Red Deer, March 2015]

G.C. was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime. G.C. was arrested as part of a lengthy investigation involving surveillance, multiple warrants and the arrest of three other people. Police allege that they observed G.C. loading marijuana into the trunk of her vehicle. She was followed and eventually pulled over by police and arrested. A search of the vehicle revealed approximately a pound of marijuana, approximately $1500 cash. Ms. Fagan was successful in securing a stay of proceedings without having to schedule a trial date.

R. v. D.J. [Provincial Court, Airdrie, January, February, March 2015]

D.J. was facing three separate sets of charges relating to his estranged wife. The charges included break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence, uttering threats and multiple breaches of court orders. The police had D.J.’s fingerprints on the window of a residence of where the B&E was alleged to have occurred as well as a statement (i.e. confession) from D.J.. As a result of Ms. Fagan’s efforts all 10 charges against D.J. were either withdrawn or stayed and he. incurred no criminal record.

R. v. V.N. [Provincial Court, Calgary, February, 2015]

Ms. Fagan was retained by V.N. for bail. When he was arrested for V.N. was on already on bail for possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine (at the kilogram level), possession of proceeds of crime ($60,000) and a number of weapons offences. The new charges stemmed from the execution of a search warrant in his home in which a significant amount of cocaine and cash was allegedly found. Notwithstanding that the Crown was strongly opposed to V.N.’s release, Ms. Fagan crafted a plan for release and argued that V.N. was releasable. The hearing Judge agreed and V.N. was released on bail.

R. v. N.J. [Provincial Court, Calgary, January 2015]

N.J. was charged with four counts of assault against a female with whom he was in an intimate relationship. Police responded to a “check on welfare” call and found the female covered in bruises and crying. She alleged that N.J. had assaulted her over a four day period. Ms. Fagan secured the withdrawal of all charges prior to trial.

R. v. H.B. [Provincial Court, Canmore, August 2014 – June 2015]

H.B. was charged with assaulting three former girlfriends over the course of several years. The allegations were similar in nature – all three women told the police that they had been involved in a romantic relationship with H.B. and that he had become violent towards them. The assaults alleged including kicking, choking, punching etc. Amongst the multiple assault charges were a handful of other charges including breaches of court orders, criminal harassment and break and enter with the intent to commit an indictable offense. H.B. was at risk of losing his job if a criminal record was imposed. In total Ms. Fagan scheduled three trials dates in 10 months to deal with a total of 13 charges. At the end of the day, Ms. Fagan ensured that her client had no criminal record relating to any of the charges he had retained her to defend.

2014

R. v. C.J. [Provincial Court, Calgary, December 2014]

C.J. was charged with causing death by criminal negligence and failing to provide the necessities of life as a result of the death of an infant in his care. Ms. Fagan secured his release on bail on reasonable terms.

IN THE NEWS:

Calgary Herald
Calgary parents accused of malnutrition in death of boy granted bail

Calgary Sun
Calgary couple charged in death of toddler seeking bail

R. v. Y.Z. [Provincial Court, Calgary, December 2014]

Y.Z. retained Ms. Fagan to defend him on two separate matters. The first set of allegations were that Y.Z. was driving while impaired. Police observed Y.Z. driving erratically in a northwest neighborhood and pulled him over. Y.Z. admitted to drinking alcohol, had open alcohol in the vehicle and blew well over the legal blood alcohol limit. At trial Ms. Fagan successfully argued that Y.Z.’s right to a lawyer had been violated and verdicts of “not guilty” were entered. While awaiting his trial on the impaired driving matter Y.Z. was on conditions to “keep the peace and be of good behaviour” and to “abstain from alcohol”. Police responded to a complaint of a naked man in backyard breaking things. When they attended at the home in question Y.Z. was allegedly found naked in a room with a shotgun and a rifle. He was charged with breaching his bail conditions and four charges relating to the firearm. Ms. Fagan avoided a conviction on the weapons charges and secured a conditional discharge (i.e. no criminal record) on the breach charge. The bottom line is that no convictions were registered against Y.Z..

R. v. F.J. [Provincial Court, Calgary, December 2014]

F.J. was charged with a number of charges stemming from a former intimate relationship. Two trial dates were scheduled. With respect to the first trial date, F.J. was alleged to have assaulted his girlfriend with a crowbar. He was charged with possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm. In regards to the second trial date, F.J. was alleged to have broken into his girlfriend’s home. He was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit an indictable offence and mischief. F.J.’s main concern was avoiding the entry of a criminal record. At the conclusion of both trials this is the result that Ms. Fagan achieved for her client, and no criminal convictions were registered against F.J.

R. v. T.C. [Provincial Court, Calgary, December 2014]

T.C. was charged with five counts of trafficking cocaine and one count of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. He was alleged to have sold cocaine/ crack cocaine to an undercover police officer on five separate occasions. Upon his arrest a search warrant was executed on T.C.’s home yielding cocaine, digital scales and personal documents. Ms. Fagan obtained a stay of proceedings (i.e. T.C. walked free with no criminal record).

R. v. K.A. [Provincial Court, Calgary, October 2014]

K.A. was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking; possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and possession of possession of proceeds of crime (in the neighborhood of $20,000). Without even having to schedule a trial date Ms. Fagan secured the withdrawal of the charges against K.A..

R. v. K.A. [Provincial Court, Calgary, September 2014]

K.A. was charged with a number of diverse and serious charges when he retained Ms. Fagan to secure his release. He was initially arrested on allegations of kidnapping, unlawful confinement and sex assault. Three months later he was alleged to have breached by being in possession of cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and proceeds of crime. He was then released on a second set of bail conditions. Less than a month later he was alleged to have been involved in a hit and run and to have breached his bail conditions. Notwithstanding that he was already released on bail twice previously, Ms. Fagan was able to secure his release on reasonable terms.

R. v. B.T. [Provincial Court, Calgary, August 2014]

B.T. was charged with a number of serious charges related to the possession of a stolen, loaded handgun. If found guilty at trial T.B. was facing what was then the mandatory minimum punishment of 3 years federal incarceration. B.T. was involved in a domestic disturbance with his girlfriend who contacted the police. B.T. left the scene and witnesses saw him remove a bag from his vehicle and put it in the bushes. When the police attended they located the bag which they found to contain the handgun. Ms. Fagan exposed the weaknesses in the Crown’s ability to prove that B.T. actually possessed the handgun and all charges against B.T. were withdrawn prior to trial.

Regina v. B.P [Provincial Court, Canmore, July 2014]

B.P was charged with two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking (cocaine and MDMA) and possession of marijuana and methamphetamine. After receiving information from a confidential informant the police obtained a search warrant to search a residence finding B.P. (and the alleged impugned substances) within. To make matters worse from a defence perspective, B.P. provided a full confession. In defence of this prosecution Ms. Fagan prepared and filed a detailed notice of her intention to seek relief under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”) targeting the integrity of the police representations relative to this so-called “confidential informant”.

BOTTOM LINE: the Crown acknowledged the strength of Ms. Fagan’s Charter argument and entered a stay of proceedings (in other words, ended the prosecution against B.P.)

Regina v. V.M. [Provincial Court, Calgary, June 2014]

V.M. was charged with trafficking in marijuana. The alleged transaction was captured on video and thereafter V.M. provided a full confession to the police. V.M. was a high ranking professional who frequently traveled to the United States and could not maintain his position if he was convicted. Ms. Fagan was successful in obtaining an absolute discharge (i.e. no criminal record).

Regina v. A.V. [Provincial Court, March 2014]

A.V. was charged with dangerous driving, impaired driving and operation of a motor vehicle while his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit. A.V. was alleged to have driven his vehicle down the wrong side of the Trans Canada, narrowly missing a police vehicle. He provided a full confession and had blood alcohol readings in excess of three times the legal limit. At the end of a hard fought trial Ms. Fagan secured “not guilty” verdicts on all charges.

Regina v. W.T. [Provincial Court, Calgary, February 2014]

W.T. was charged with production of marijuana, possession of proceeds of crime and possession of cocaine. The police entered his home while he was present and allegedly found a grow operation, several hundred dollars cash and a small amount of cocaine. Despite the very serious nature of the charges, Ms. Fagan succeeded in securing an absolute discharge and avoiding the entry of a criminal record.

Regina v. K.C. [Provincial Court, Calgary, February 2014]

K.C. was charged with attempted murder. The police alleged that he attended at the residence of another man and shot him in the stomach using a shot gun. Despite the fact that “attempted murder” is one of the most difficult charges a person may face in obtaining bail, Ms. Fagan successfully secured the release of her client on reasonable terms.

Regina v. K.R. [Court of Queen’s Bench, Calgary, February 2014]

K.R. was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime. He was arrested in his home where over 60 grams of cocaine and approximately $30,000.00 were allegedly located pursuant to a search warrant. Ms. Fagan (facing two experienced Crown Prosecutors) secured verdicts of “not guilty” on both charges at the conclusion of a complex 5 day Queen’s Bench trial.

2013

Regina v. G.T. [Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, September 2013]

Client charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm, both of which carry a mandatory jail sentence. After a hard fought 5 day preliminary inquiry the entire matter was resolved by way of guilty plea to impaired driving and a fine. The much more serious charges carrying the mandatory jail sentence were completely withdrawn.

Regina v. P.R. [Calgary Provincial Court, September 2013]

The police received information from multiple confidential informants that P.R. was dealing crack cocaine. After extensive police surveillance a search warrant was obtained and executed on P.R.’s home. The police found P.R. alone the in the residence sitting beside a bag of approximately a pound of crack cocaine and $40,000.00 cash. R.P. was promptly arrested and charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime and three counts of breach of a court order. The case against P.R. was very compelling and the Crown’s pre-trial resolution offer was 5-6 years imprisonment in exchange for a timely guilty plea. The offer was rejected and the case scheduled for trial. At trial Ms. Fagan attacked the constitutional validity of the search warrant and was successful in excluding all material evidence (including the crack cocaine and cash) from trial proceedings. Bottom line: Ms. Fagan secured verdicts of not guilty on all charges. Ms. Fagan was also successful in recovering all cash seized by the police.

Regina v. F.E. [Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, September 2013]

Client was charged with possession of approximately 1 kilogram of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and numerous firearm offences. She was released on bail, one condition of which was to have no contact with her co-accused. Over the course of two months the police allegedly intercepted over 500 conversations between F.E. and her co-accused – many of those conversations involved the alleged destruction of material evidence. Her bail was promptly denied at the Provincial Court level (where she was not represented by our office). F.E. then retained Ms. Fagan who secured F.E.’s release on bail in the Court of Queen’s Bench despite vehement opposition by the assigned Crown Prosecutor.

Regina v. M.M. & T.L. [Territorial Court of the Northwest Territories, Hay River, August 2013]

Clients were charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and two firearm offences. The case against P.R. was very compelling and the Crown’s pre-trial resolution offer was 9 months incarceration in exchange for a timely guilty plea. The offer was rejected and the case scheduled for trial. On the first day of trial Ms. Fagan succeeded in having all charges withdrawn.

Regina v. H.K. [Provincial Court, Lethbridge, August 2013]

H.K. was allegedly involved in a high speed chase with the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) in the United States that ended in a collision. Our client allegedly ran across the Canadian/US border where he was apprehended by the RCMP. H.K. was charged with the importation of 9.5 kilograms of cocaine. Ms. Fagan was able to secure H.K.’s release on bail.

Regina v. T.B. [Arrest Processing Unit, Calgary, July 2013]

T.B. was charged with possession of approximately 1 kilogram of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking; possession of oxycontin for the purpose of trafficking (~2000 pills); two counts of trafficking in cocaine and psilocybin (mushrooms); possession of proceeds of crime ($190,000) and nine breaches of a peace bond. Ms. Fagan was able to secure T.B.’s release on bail within 24 hours of his arrest.

Regina v. W.S. [Calgary Provincial Court, April 2013/ May 2013]

W.S. was on bail conditions relative to allegations of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking out of Newfoundland. While on release, W.S. acquired with two additional sets drug charges in Alberta. The allegations with respect to the first Alberta drug matter were that W.S. was driving a motor vehicle that was pulled over by the police. The police stated that they could smell fresh marijuana emanating from the trunk of the vehicle and conducted a search which yielded more than a kilogram of marijuana. W.S. was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and two counts of breaching his conditions. Ms. Fagan was successful in securing his release on bail. Within 2 days of his release, W.S. was again apprehended by the police in similar circumstances. The police attended at the scene of a motor vehicle accident involving W.S. and seized 1.4 kilograms of marijuana and hash valued at $20,000. W.S. was again charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking and two counts of breach of conditions. Ms. Fagan again successfully secured his release on bail. The Crown offered to resolve all W.S.’s matters globally for 3 years incarceration. At the end of the day, Ms. Fagan was successful in resolving all of W.S.’s matters by way of guilty pleas to two counts of simple possession of marijuana and a fine. The much more serious charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking and the four breaches were completely withdrawn.

Regina v. A.H. [Calgary Provincial Court, June 2013]

This was the largest heroin importation seizure in the history of Alberta. The allegations were that A.H. had traveled from South Africa to Calgary with over 12 kilograms of heroin in two suitcases with false bottoms. He was arrested at the airport allegedly holding the suitcases. A.H. was a refugee and resided in Toronto with no ties to Calgary or Alberta. According to police the heroin had an estimated street value of 3 million dollars. The Crown was vehemently opposed to A.H.’s release on all three grounds (primary, secondary and tertiary). At the conclusion of a 2 day bail hearing Ms. Fagan secured the release of A.H. on bail conditions.

IN THE NEWS:

Global News
Huge Heroin Bust: Largest Seizure for Border Services in Alberta

Calgary Sun
Strict bail conditions approved for man Charged in massive heroin bust

Calgary Sun
Crown reveals suspected smuggler is a Tanzanian refugee already ordered out of Canada

Minister of Justice v. L.D. [Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, May 2013]

This was a civil forfeiture matter which involved the agents of the Province of Alberta seizing a home valued at over half a million dollars. L.D. was a father whose son was charged with trafficking in marijuana, possession of proceeds of crime and possession for the purpose of trafficking (marijuana). Multiple kilograms of marijuana and almost $100,000 in cash were found in the home allegedly occupied by the son. Ms. Fagan was successful in challenging the application for forfeiture of the home and in having it returned to L.D..

Regina v. R.S. [Territorial Court of the Northwest Territories, Hay River, March, 2013]

R.S. was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking (cocaine); possession for the purpose of trafficking (marijuana); as well as possession of crack cocaine and marijuana. Ms. Fagan was successful in having all charges withdrawn prior to trial. She also secured the return of cash and personal items seized by the police.

Regina v. S.H. [Calgary Provincial Court, March 2013]

S.H. was subject to two bail orders – one a drug matter and the other a sexual assault. The allegations were that S.H. was found in a bar, past his curfew, in the company of people with whom he had a no contact order. A total of 6 charges of breach of condition were laid. S.H. was approached by Calgary City Police (Gang Suppression Team) and using the provisions of the “Liquor and Gaming Act” the police asked S.H. to identify himself which led to the alleged breaches being discovered. At trial Ms. Fagan successfully argued that the police were using the “Liquor and Gaming Act” improperly to target individuals they believed to be involved in criminal activity rather than for regulatory purposes. Ultimately, the Crown conceded the inevitable and stay of proceedings prior to the Court rendering a judgment.

2012

Regina v. P.S.R. [Strathmore Provincial Court, August 2012]

Client was charged with impaired driving. Police received information about a potentially suicidal impaired driver. Several police units were dispatched including a helicopter. Police located P.S.R., drew their weapons and after protracted negotiations took P.S.R. into custody. Police noted several open liquor bottles in the vehicle, vomit down P.S.R.’s chest and P.S.R. (unwisely) admitted to drinking. Ms. Fagan secured a verdict of not guilty.

Regina v. T.A.P. [Medicine Hat Provincial Court, September 2012]

Client was charged with two counts of trafficking (cocaine and marijuana); possession for the purpose of trafficking (cocaine); possession of proceeds of crime and three breaches of his bail conditions. T.A.P was released and within weeks was arrested a second time for further breaches. T.A.P. was released again and was then arrested a third time for trafficking in cocaine, possession for the purpose of trafficking (ecstasy) and three further breaches of his bail conditions. Ms. Fagan rejected the Crown’s offer of 18 months incarceration for an early guilty plea and scheduled the matter for trial. T.A.P. wished to have his matter resolved prior to trial. Ms. Fagan managed to secure the withdrawal of all but one charge and the entire prosecution was dealt with by a six month conditional sentence order (i.e. house arrest).

Regina v. J.S. [Calgary Provincial Court, August 2012]

Client faced a conspiracy charge along with eleven other charges stemming from his alleged involvement in a sophisticated motor vehicle trafficking ring. This was a complex case involving extensive surveillance and the interception of private communications (i.e. “wiretap”). Ms. Fagan killed the prosecution in its entirety by way of the complete withdrawal of all charges.

Regina v. M.K. [Okotoks Provincial Court, June 2012]

Client was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, proceeds of crime and three counts of simple possession of cocaine. Ms. Fagan secured a conditional discharge relating to the charge of simple possession and all other charges were completely withdrawn (i.e. no entry of a criminal record).

Regina v. D.S. [Arrest Processing Unit before a Justice of the Peace, April 2012]

As a result of a nine month investigation by police, D.S. was charged with eight counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking in crack cocaine, crystal meth, ecstasy and marijuana as well as two counts of possession of proceeds of crime. D.S. had an extensive criminal record and allegedly committed these offences while out on bail for other charges. Ms. Fagan was able to secure his release within 8 hours of his arrest.

Regina v. A.M. [Peace River Provincial Court, March 2012]

A.M. was the target of ongoing police surveillance during which the police observed activity consistent with drug trafficking. Police allegedly made several undercover purchases of cocaine from A.M. and thereafter executed a search warrant on his vehicle and home. A.M. was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, weapons and possession of proceeds of crime. In the final result this matter was dealt with by way of a finding of guilt to simple possession of a controlled substance and a $1,000.00 fine was imposed. All other charges (including the charge of trafficking) were completely withdrawn and the money that had been seized by the police was returned to A.M.

Regina v. L.A. [Calgary Provincial Court, February 2012]

Client was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, production and possession of proceeds of crime. He was the subject of an extensive inter-provincial undercover investigation that culminated in his arrest. He allegedly had 8 kilograms of cocaine in his possession. Ms. Fagan secured his release within 48 hours of his arrest.

• Calgary Herald: “Calgary Man faces charges after $400,000 cocaine bust” (Feb 29, 2012)

• 660 News: “Major Cocaine Seizure” (Feb 29th 2012)

• CTV.ca: “Police make big Cocaine Bust” (Feb 29 2012)

Regina v. P.K. [Calgary Provincial Court, February 2012]

Client was the subject of an extensive inter-provincial undercover investigation. Police linked this seizure to other seizures made during the same week which prompted them to call it “one of the biggest cocaine seizures in the history of Alberta”. Client was charged with trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking. When arrested P.K. was alleged to have been found in possession of 11 kilograms of cocaine and $140,000 in cash. Ms. Fagan secured P.K.’s release within 12 hour of his arrest.

Regina v. C.J. [Calgary Provincial Court, February 2012]

“The Tainted Ecstasy Case” – Client charged with two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking (ecstasy); ten counts of trafficking (ecstasy) and several proceeds of crime and weapons charges. The ecstasy seized was tested and determined to have been cut with the lethal compound “PMMA” that had been linked to ten deaths in the city of Calgary. As a result, this file received extensive coverage in the media and was “front page news”. The Crown vehemently opposed the release of C.J. and his co-accused. Ms. Fagan was able to secure C.J.’s judicial interim release (i.e. bail) within 48 hours of his arrest.

• Calgary Herald: “Ecstasy Suspect makes Bail”

• Calgary Herald: Calgary man charged with selling tainted ecstasy released on bail

• The Vancouver Sun: Suspect in tainted ecstasy case released on $30,000 bail

• Calgary Sun: “Accused Ecstasy Dealer Granted Bail”

Regina v. N.P. [Calgary Provincial Court, February 2012]

N.P. was charged with assault with a weapon, common assault and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace as a result of an alleged beating at a C-Train station. The primary issue was identification. Ms. Fagan was able to have all charges completely withdrawn on the first day of trial.

2011

Regina v. P.J. [Calgary Provincial Court, November 2011]

P.J. was charged with seven weapons/firearms offences, two counts of uttering threats (including to blow up a drug treatment facility) and four counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking. The Crown strongly opposed P.J.’s release but Ms. Fagan was able to secure his release within days of his release.

Regina v. L.F. [Calgary Provincial Court, December 2011]

L.F. was charged with two counts of assault with a weapon; assault causing bodily harm; two counts of uttering threats and two weapons charges as a result of an alleged stabbing. The Crown’s resolution offer of a jail term was promptly rejected. Through the efforts of Ms. Fagan not only did L.F. avoid the imposition of a jail term but the entry of a criminal conviction as well. Bottom line: the matter was dealt with by way of a conditional discharge.