Our Appellate Cases

This case followed the principles established in R. v. Nur and found the mandatory minimum sentence for Possession of Controlled Substance for the Purpose of Trafficking to be unconstitutional. Dirk Derstine was asked by the Criminal Lawyers assn to intervene for them at the Supreme Court of Canada. … Read More.

This Supreme Court decision was narrowly split, 3 to 2, as to whether or not the appellant’s Charter rights had been infringed by the police in the course of their investigation and in the taking of blood samples without consent. … Read More.

Derstine Partners obtained a new trial for Mr. Vickerson after he was unfairly convicted of drug offences. The appellant had been forced into a jury trial, without a lawyer and without receiving disclosure of the Crown’s evidence. … Read More.

A new trial was ordered for the shooter in the Eaton Centre case after the Court found that his procedural rights had been violated by the trial judge’s decision regarding the procedure used to select the jury. The Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. … Read More.

After being convicted at trial, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the trial judge erred by refusing to allow the defence to call a witness who was expected to admit culpability for the offences charged. The Court agreed with our position and a new trial was ordered. …Read More.

On appeal, the Court agreed with our position that the trial judge had inappropriately interfered with the trial process. A new trial was ordered for our client. …Read More.

Mr. Hall was acquitted of all charges after a trial by judge alone. The Crown appealed the acquittals on the basis that the trial judge had improperly excluded evidence from the trial. The Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal and dismissed the Crown’s appeal. They held that the trial judge did not err in finding that Mr. Hall’s Charter rights had been infringed and that he did not overstate seriousness of police misconduct. …Read More.

The Crown appealed the trial judge’s ruling that there had been an abuse of process and a violation of the accused’s section 7 Charter rights. The proceedings were stayed on the basis that the police fabrication of evidence such as he found occurred in this case, so clearly contravened fundamental notions of justice and undermined the integrity of the criminal judicial process that it was necessary to dissociate the court from the continued prosecution of the case. The Court of Appeal agreed with our position that the trial judge had not erred. …Read More.

The Court dismissed the Crown’s appeal against acquittal. The Court held that the trial judge’s decision to disallow certain evidence was not unreasonable. …Read More.