Recent Cases

I recently represented an individual charged with possession of stolen property. He was jointly charged with a co-accused, and the matter was scheduled for trial in the Alberta Court of Justice (Red Deer).

From the outset, it was clear that the Crown's case was riddled with procedural and evidentiary deficiencies—issues that ultimately led to the charges being stayed.

Procedural Deficiencies in the Charging Document

One of the first red flags was found in the charging document itself. The Information incorrectly named an individual as the complainant who, in fact, had no legal ownership of the vehicle alleged to be stolen. This was a material error, as the proper complainant—the registered owner—was not correctly identified in the court process, calling into question the foundational basis of the prosecution.

Non-Compliant Affidavit Evidence

In an attempt to cure the ownership issue, the Crown submitted an affidavit from the registered owner of the vehicle. However, this affidavit failed to meet the evidentiary threshold established under section 657.1 of the Criminal Code. Specifically, it did not conform to the requirements for admissibility of written evidence in criminal proceedings, lacking the formalities necessary to allow the court to accept it without the owner’s in-person testimony. This rendered the Crown unable to reliably establish a key element of the offence: that the property in question was indeed “stolen.”