Client Success Stories

Assault and Breach

R v NR

NR was alleged to have assaulted his common law partner. Several months later he was alleged to have assaulted her again, this time in breach of a court order. Consequently, NR was charged with multiple assault and court order breach offences.
NR strongly denied the allegations. He plead not guilty and trial dates were set.

Before the first trial date, Matt Browne made multiple disclosure requests. The sought disclosure would bear on the complainant’s credibility. Matt had numerous discussions with the Crown about the disclosure. Through the discussions the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges that NR was facing.

Breach Court Order

R v SS

When SS contacted Matt Browne he was charged with two breaches of a Conditional Sentence Order (CSO) and two breaches of a court order. CSO breaches may result in an individual spending the balance of their sentence in jail.

The Crown alleged that SS committed multiple curfew breaches. Matt Browne explained to the Crown that SS was assisting his mother during one of the breaches. Matt also noted some challenges the Crown would have with establishing the other breach allegations.

The Crown agreed. Three of the charges were dropped and SS plead guilty to a single CSO breach and received a 10 day extension of his CSO as a sentence.  


R v OB

Following a Christmas party, OB’s partner called the police alleging that OB assaulted her and prevented her from leaving the family home. The police arrested OB and charged him with assault causing bodily harm and forcible confinement.

After meeting with OB and reviewing disclosure Matt Browne contacted the Crown to discuss OB’s matter. Matt Browne highlighted potential credibility and witness participation issues should a trial occur. The Crown agreed; OB entered into a common law peace bond and the charges against him were withdrawn.

Assault and Breach

R v NR

Early in the morning, NR and his friends were in an Uber on their way to a casino. During the ride, a dispute occurred between one of NR’s friends and the Uber driver. NR got involved in the dispute. During the incident the vehicle’s windshield wiper was broken.

The Uber driver called the police. NR was charged with assault and mischief (for breaking the windshield wiper). NR denied the allegation and the matter was set for trial.

On the day of trial, Matt Browne advised the Crown that NR had nothing to do with the physical part of the confrontation, nor did he break the windshield wiper. Matt Browne suggested that the Uber driver may have confused NR with another patron. After discussions with the Uber driver, the Crown agreed to drop the charges.

Drug Offences

R v CM

Bike cops were responding to reports of drug trafficking in downtown Calgary. When they arrived at the scene of the complaint, the police found CM engaging in activity consistent with drug trafficking.

CM was arrested. A search of CM incident to arrest yielded several types of drugs along with cash. CM was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime.

After reviewing disclosure, Matt Browne noted a significant issue with the search of CM. The issue could form the basis for an application to exclude the drugs and cash from the trial under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Matt informed the Crown of the issues the with search. The Crown reviewed disclosure in light of Matt’s comments. They then advised Matt that the charges against CM would be withdrawn.

Sexual offences

R v TR

TR met a girl online. The two went on a date and then went back to the complainant’s residence. The complainant lived with her parents. TR and the complainant had consensual sex.

Several days later, the complainant contacted the police and said that TR sexually assaulted her. TR was shocked when he was arrested and charged with sexual assault.

TR contacted Matt Browne right away. Matt advised him of his rights and how to handle any contact from the police. Matt’s pre-charge advice may have impacted the police investigation such that the Crown was of the view that they not longer had a reasonable prospect of conviction. At the first court appearance, the Crown stayed the charges against TR.

Firearm Offences

R v CM

The complainant called the police alleging that CM had hit her with the butt of a shotgun, pointed the shotgun at her, and threatened to kill her. CM was arrested and charged with uttering threats, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

CM informed Matt Browne that the complainant was lying. Matt Browne entered a not guilty plea for CM and set the matter for trial.

Matt Browne contacted the Crown to advise them of potential credibility issues concerning the complainant. Shortly after entering a not guilty plea, the Crown informed Matt there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charges against CM were withdrawn

Violent offences

R v DM

Two individuals called their friends stating that they had been kidnapped, they were being held hostage, and they needed money so that they could be released. A police investigation ensued. Eventually, DM and two other men were arrested and charged with kidnapping.  

DM was convicted at his first trial; however, he was successful on appeal and a new trial was ordered. Matt Browne was retained to represent DM at his new trial.

The central issue at trial would be the credibility of a Crown witness. It was Matt’s position that the witnesses’ testimony could not be trusted. There was significant outstanding disclosure issues in relation to the Crown’s witness.

On the day of trial, with disclosure outstanding, the Crown advised the court that they would be entering a stay of proceedings.

Drug Offences

R v KM

The police pulled KM over for driving an uninsured vehicle. The traffic stop resulted in KM getting arrested. The police conducted an inventory search of the vehicle KM was driving. The police found a significant quantity of drugs along with drug trafficking paraphernalia. KM was charged with several Traffic Safety Act offences and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

After reviewing Crown disclosure, Matt Browne noted several issues with the way the search was conducted. The unreasonable nature of the search would allow for an application to exclude the drugs from evidence under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Matt sent a letter to the Crown laying out the state of the law surrounding inventory searches along with the problematic way the police searched the vehicle KM was driving. In response to Matt’s letter the Crown directed a stay of proceedings on all of KM’s charges.

Property offences

R v CM

The police were conducting surveillance on CM. During a period of observation, the police determined that CM was driving a vehicle that had been reported stolen. The police arrested CM as soon as he exited the vehicle. CM was charged with possession of stolen property.

Matt Browne met with CM and reviewed disclosure. Matt noted an irreparable issue with the Crown’s case. Matt explained the issue to the Crown. The Crown withdrew the charges against CM.