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 Fagan was able to get the charge against K.L. completely withdrawn prior to trial.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 17^th 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).

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.

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).

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.

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.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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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] – 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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)

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.

“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”

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.

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.

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.