R. vs. E.E. and B.L. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charges: Fraud; misrepresentation.

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal investigation and prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to negotiate a civil settlement on our clients’ behalf resulting in an end to the matter. No police investigation. No criminal record.

R. vs. G.P. – New Westminster Provincial Court

Charge: Theft Under $5000 (from employer).

Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was contrary to the public interest for the court to grant our client a conditional discharge.

Result: Crown counsel’s position was that our client should be sentenced to jail but after considering our client’s positive pre-sentence report and Mr. Mines’ submissions on our client’s behalf, the court granted a conditional dischege. No criminal conviction.

R. v. G.K. – Fort St. John Provincial Court

Charge: Theft/ Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).

Issue: Whether Crown could prove the alleged $300,000 offence and, given the rehabilitative steps that we were able to guide our client through, whether a jail sentence was necessary.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel that they could only prove that our client was responsible for a $74,000 theft. Further, despite the breach of trust, in this case, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to seek a conditional sentence, rather than jail. After hearing Mr. Gauthier’s submissions, the court sentenced our client to a 2 year conditional sentence. No jail.

R. vs. F.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Theft and Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).

Issue: Whether the pre-charge delay of 3.5 years would reduce the sentence in this $215,000 employee fraud case.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the trial judge and Crown counsel that there was merit to our application for a judicial stay of proceedings based on our client’s inability to properly defend the charges due to a delay of about 4 years in getting the charges approved. Notwithstanding this breach of trust, Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a plea arrangement in which our client received a 2 year conditional sentence order with a 10 pm curfew for 12 months. No monies were ordered to be repaid. No jail.

R. vs. Q.G. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).

Issue: Whether Crown counsel had sufficient evidence to meet the charge approval standard.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that important evidence would be missing from a cenrtal witness and to not approve any charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. Z.Y. – Healthcare Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charges: Fraud Under $5000.

Issue: Given the prompt repayment of restitution that we made on our client’s behalf, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the investigator to not forward any charges for prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. T.B. and M.L. – Surrey RCMP Investigation

Charges: Possession of Stolen Property over $5000.

Issue: Whether police had sufficient grounds to recommend criminal charges against our clients.

Result: After Mr. Gauthier consulted with the investigator, RCMP decided to refer the case for civil forfeiture and to not pursue  any criminal charges against our clients. No prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. I.M. – ICBC Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charges: Fraud/misrepresentation.

Issue: Whether our client actually intended to make a misleading or fraudulent automobile accident claim.

Result: After consulting with us, our client provided an explanation to the investigator that resulted in ICBC deciding to not recommend any charges.  No prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.C. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Theft (from employeer) Over $5000.

Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Upon Mr. Mines providing information to Crown counsel that our client had fully settled the matter civilly and that there was a significant chance that a key Crown witness would be unavailable at trial, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings.No criminal record.

R. vs. T.E. ICBC Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charges: Fraud/misrepresentation.

Issue: Whether our client actually intended to make a misleading or fraudulent automobile accident claim.

Result: After consulting with Mr. Gauthier, our client provided an explanation to the investigator that resulted in ICBC electing to not recommend any charges.  No prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. G.K. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charges: Theft Under $5000 9shoplifting).

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able tp rovide information about our client’s circumstances and the circumstances of the offence that led to Crown deciding to not approve any charges. No prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. T.J. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Theft Under $5000.

Issue: Whether there was substantial likelihood of a conviction.

Result: Mr. Gauthier provided information and made representations to Crown counsel which ultimately led Crown to agree that there was no reasonable likelihood of a conviction. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.