In R v Barton, 2024 ABCA 351, Peter successfully defended a 12.5-year sentence against a Crown appeal, which sought a significantly harsher penalty of 18 to 20 years. The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the original sentence, agreeing with Peter’s argument that the sentencing judge had properly weighed all relevant factors, including the gravity of the offence and Mr. Barton’s moral blameworthiness. While acknowledging the seriousness of the case, Peter demonstrated that the trial judge had already accounted for the aggravating factors, including the nature of the assault and the vulnerability of the victim, and that the sentence imposed fell within a reasonable range. The Court’s decision affirms the importance of individualized sentencing and judicial discretion, rejecting the Crown’s attempt to impose a rigid approach that disregarded precedent and proportionality.

In R v Saddleback, 2024 ABCA 352, Peter successfully argued that his client’s conviction for second-degree murder was tainted by legal error, leading the Alberta Court of Appeal to overturn the verdict and order a new trial. The trial judge improperly relied on an untested statement made by the victim during a phone call shortly before his death, using it to establish a key fact in the case—namely, the timeline of events that placed our client as the only possible perpetrator. Peter demonstrated that this was impermissible hearsay and that its use materially impacted the conviction. The Court agreed, finding that this error of law undermined the fairness of the trial. This ruling reinforces the fundamental principle that convictions must rest on properly admitted evidence, and we remain committed to ensuring our client receives a fair trial.

In R v Soranno, 2024 BCCA 230, Peter successfully argued that his clients, Amy Soranno and Nicholas Schafer, should not serve jail time for their peaceful protest at a hog farm. Initially sentenced to 30 days in jail followed by 12 months of probation, they challenged the decision on the basis that incarceration was disproportionate given their non-violent actions and sincere motives. The British Columbia Court of Appeal agreed, ruling that a conditional sentence was now legally available due to recent legislative changes and that incarceration was unnecessary to achieve sentencing objectives. The Court substituted a 120-day conditional sentence order, followed by probation, recognizing that his clients posed no danger to the public and that their punishment should reflect principles of proportionality and restraint. This decision reinforces the importance of fair sentencing in cases of civil disobedience and affirms that justice must be responsive to both legal principles and legislative evolution

In R v Wong, 2024 ABCA 212, Peter successfully overturned his client’s custodial sentence and secured a conditional sentence order (CSO) instead. Mr. Wong had pled guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000. Despite the Crown conceding that he was on the same level as his co-accused—both of whom received CSOs—the sentencing judge imposed a two-year less a day jail sentence, citing aggravating factors that were neither advanced by the Crown nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Peter argued that this approach violated sentencing principles, particularly parity and procedural fairness. The Alberta Court of Appeal agreed, ruling that the sentencing judge had erred in principle by rejecting the Crown’s concession without notice and improperly relying on unproven aggravating factors. The Court substituted a CSO, ensuring a fair and proportionate sentence while maintaining public safety.

In R v Abdul-Aziz, 2023 ABCA 336, Peter successfully argued that his client’s convictions on multiple weapons charges should be overturned due to flawed reasoning about fingerprint evidence. The trial judge found that his client’s fingerprint on a firearm most likely resulted from him performing a “pinch check” to confirm a round was chambered. However, Peter demonstrated that this conclusion was speculative and not the only plausible explanation. The Alberta Court of Appeal accepted fresh evidence undermining the trial judge’s reasoning, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial.

In R v Bobrosky, 2023 ABCA 229, Peter successfully argued that his client’s conviction for sexual assault should be overturned and a new trial ordered. The appeal centered on the trial judge’s improper restriction of cross-examination regarding prior sexual activity, which was directly relevant to assessing the complainant’s credibility. While the trial judge allowed limited questioning on past encounters, key aspects that could have tested inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony were unfairly excluded. The Alberta Court of Appeal agreed that these restrictions prevented his client from making full answer and defence, which was a critical error given that the case turned on credibility.

In R v CL, 2023 SKCA 58, Peter successfully argued that his client’s conviction for sexual interference should be overturned due to a violation of his right to counsel under the Charter. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal found that the police failed to ensure that his client, who suffers from serious mental health disorders, properly understood his right to legal representation before making incriminating statements. Despite clear signs that he did not fully comprehend his rights, officers did not take adequate steps to clarify his understanding or provide additional legal assistance. The Court ruled that this failure constituted a Charter breach, leading to the exclusion of his statement and the quashing of his conviction.

In R v Cervantes, 2022 ABCA 363, Peter successfully argued that his clients’ convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference should be overturned due to errors in the trial judge’s assessment of the evidence. The Alberta Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to properly consider whether the complainant’s testimony raised a reasonable doubt and did not address key credibility and reliability concerns raised in closing arguments. The Court agreed that these omissions were significant errors that undermined the fairness of the trial. As a result, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

In Denis v Sauvageau, 2022 ABCA 354, Peter successfully argued that his client’s conviction for criminal contempt was procedurally flawed and should be overturned. The Alberta Court of Appeal agreed that Mr. Denis had been found guilty of contempt without the benefit of a hearing, which was a fundamental breach of procedural fairness. The Court quashed both the citation and the finding of contempt, allowing the appeal.

In Rumancik v Hardy, 2022 ABCA 345, Peter successfully argued that his clients’ solicitor-client privilege had been improperly set aside, leading the Alberta Court of Appeal to overturn the case management judge’s ruling and remit the matter for reconsideration. The judge had ordered his clients to answer privileged questions without providing sufficient reasons or properly applying the legal test for implied waiver. The Court agreed that solicitor-client privilege is a fundamental right that can only be waived in clear and limited circumstances, and that his client had not voluntarily done so.

In R v Whiskeyjack, 2022 ABCA 76, Peter successfully argued that his client’s conviction for first-degree murder should be overturned due to a serious misdirection in the jury instructions. The trial judge improperly told the jury to assess Mr. Whiskeyjack’s testimony with “a great deal of caution,” effectively subjecting him to a higher standard of proof than the law allows. This error undermined the presumption of innocence by suggesting that his testimony was inherently suspect simply because he was an accused person. The Alberta Court of Appeal agreed that this instruction was a fundamental legal error that tainted the verdict, and as a result, the Court set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial.

In R v SKM, 2021 ABCA 246, Peter successfully argued that his client’s conviction for sexual assault should be overturned due to multiple errors that undermined trial fairness. The Alberta Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the limited use of prior consistent statements, admitted highly prejudicial evidence from the complainant’s husband without proper legal safeguards, and wrongly excluded expert testimony on false memories—an issue central to the defence. These errors created a real risk that the jury improperly bolstered the complainant’s credibility and failed to fairly assess whether her memories of the alleged assault were reliable. As a result, the Court set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial, reinforcing the principle that every accused person is entitled to a fair trial based on properly admitted evidence and sound legal instructions. The client was later acquitted by a jury.

In R v Sunderji, 2020 ABCA 392, Peter successfully argued that his client’s conviction for assault causing bodily harm should be overturned, leading the Alberta Court of Appeal to substitute a conviction for simple assault instead. The trial judge had acknowledged weaknesses in the complainant’s testimony and stated that additional confirmatory evidence was required to establish bodily harm—yet ultimately convicted without clearly identifying such evidence. The Court found that this approach rendered the conviction unsafe and ruled that while an assault had occurred, the legal threshold for bodily harm was not met.

In R v Churchill, 2019 ABCA 261, Peter successfully argued that his client’s sentence for trafficking in fentanyl by “holding out” was excessive and should be reduced. The Alberta Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred by treating the offence as equivalent to actual fentanyl trafficking, even though his client knowingly sold a substance that was not fentanyl or any other illegal drug. While the Court recognized that such offences remain serious, it agreed that the sentence should be adjusted to reflect the reality that no actual fentanyl was involved. The Court reduced the sentence from three years to two years, ensuring a more proportionate and just outcome.

In R v Barton, 2019 SCC 33, Dino Bottos and Peter successfully argued that our client’s acquittal for first-degree murder should not be overturned, though a new trial was ordered on the lesser charge of unlawful act manslaughter. The Supreme Court of Canada found that the trial judge had failed to apply strict legal rules regarding the admissibility of the complainant’s prior sexual history, leading to serious errors in how the jury considered consent. However, the Court agreed with their position that these errors did not taint the acquittal for murder, as the Crown’s case relied on a theory that did not hold up under scrutiny. The Court ruled that while a new trial was necessary, it should be limited to manslaughter.

In R v Suter, 2018 SCC 34, Dino Bottos and Peter successfully argued before the Supreme Court of Canada that Richard Suter’s sentence should be reduced to time served. Mr. Suter, who accidentally drove onto a restaurant patio, causing a tragic death, was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample after following incorrect legal advice. Although the trial judge sentenced him to four months, the Alberta Court of Appeal increased it to 26 months. They challenged this ruling, highlighting that Mr. Suter was not impaired, acted on bad legal advice, and suffered a brutal vigilante attack. The Supreme Court agreed that these factors had to be properly considered and restored a fairer sentence. This decision reaffirms the importance of individualized sentencing and ensuring that justice accounts for the full circumstances of each case.