Drug Possession, Drug Trafficking, Importation and Production

R. v. A.J. [June 29th, 2011] - Client charged with PPT for cocaine, ecstasy and marijuana and possession of the proceeds of crime.  After a long trial lasting several days over many months, the client was acquitted of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime.

R. v. D.B. [May 24th, 2011] - Client charged with production and possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine.  After the first day of trial, the Crown offered a conditional sentence as a result of frailties exposed in its case. 

R. v. J.C.B. [February 17th, 2011] - Client charged with kilogram level importation of cocaine. After several days of trial, a judicial stay of proceedings was entered by the trial judge.

R. v. D.O. [January 31st, 2011] - Client charged with possession of marijuana.  Charges dismissed by trial judge.

R. v. I.T.P. [December 2010] - Client was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, marijuana, morphine and oxycodine.  During the trial, the judge did not exclude evidence pursuant to a substantial Charter Notice, but agreed with the defence argument that the quantity of the marijuana and cocaine was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  At the conclusion of trial, the Crown asked for 4 years incarceration.  The accused successfully argued a Conditional Sentence Order of two-years less a day.

R. v. A.M.N. [December 2010] - Client was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking approximately 7 grams of crack cocaine.  Client pleaded to lesser included offence of simple possession and successfully argued for a 6 month conditional discharge. 

R. v. J.B. [November 2010] - Client was charged with trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking approximately 1 1/2 ounces of marijuana.  Client pleaded guilty, but successfully argued a conditional discharge. 

R. v. N.M. [July 29th, 2010] - Client was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. After filing a substantial Charter Notice, all charges were withdrawn. 

R. v. C.C.P. [June 17th, 2010] - Client was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession, possession of a firearm in contravention of a firearms prohibition order.  After a week of trial, the client was acquitted by a Court of Queen's Bench Justice. 

R. v. F.M. [July 2nd, 2009] – Client was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine.  He was acquitted at trial.

R. v. V.S. [2009] - Client was charged with 4 counts of trafficking to an undercover police officer, possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime.  Defence counsel took carriage of the file from another lawyer. Client received a conditional sentence.

R. v. M.W. [2009] – Accused was charged with trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking.  The Crown case was based upon wiretap evidence.  After discussions between crown and defence, the case was stayed by the prosecution prior to trial.

R. v. T.A.E. [March 23rd, 2009] – Accused was charged with several counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, numerous firearms offences, cultivating marijuana and possession of ecstasy.  Defence counsel submitted a substantial charter notice in support of the accused’s application to exclude all of the evidence.  After receiving the Charter Notice, the crown agreed to resolve the matter by way of a conditional sentence order. 

R. v. C.S. [October 2008] (unreported) – Client charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, resisting arrest and other charges began trial as an unrepresented accused.  The client agreed to plead guilty (without the assistance of a lawyer).  The Crown sought 3 years incarceration on the basis of the nature of the charge and the accused’s previous record (which included prior trafficking related offences).  Defence counsel was involved late in the proceedings.  The defence argued for a conditional sentence ordered.  Conditional sentence order granted.

R. v. S.B. [2008] (Unreported, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench) – Client charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking crack cocaine.  In mid-trial, the client accepted a plea bargain, involving a guilty plea to simple possession.  He received a small fine.  The issues driving the offer from the Crown revolved around an unconstitutional strip search and body cavity search by the investigating authorities.

R. v. G.S., [2008] (Unreported, Alta. P.C.) – Client plead guilty to cultivating opium for the purpose of trafficking.  This was the first case of its kind in Alberta.  The client received a conditional sentence order.
 
R. v. S.A. [September 2008] (unreported) – Client charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.  Charges stayed at preliminary inquiry.

R. v. T.T. [2008] (Unreported, Alberta Provincial Court) – Client was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in approximately 5 pounds of cannabis marijuana.  The Client was acquitted after 2 days of trial.  

R. v. L.A. [2008] (Presently Unreported, Alberta Provincial Court) – Client was charged with trafficking in crack cocaine.  Police conducted an undercover buy with a person alleged to be the Client.  The judge acquitted the accused after trial due to frailties in eyewitness identification.

R. v. C.J.C. [2007] (Unreported, Alberta Provincial Court) – Client charged with three counts of trafficking crack cocaine to an undercover police officer.  After trial, the Client was acquitted due to continuity issues.

R. v. H.T.P. [2006] (Unreported, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench) – Client charged with cultivating marijuana and being in possession of a large quantity of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.  Police executed a search warrant and located a large marijuana grow operation.  After the preliminary inquiry, the Crown entered a stay of proceedings with the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta.  The stay was entered as a result of numerous Charter issues arising from evidence obtained at the preliminary inquiry.

R. v. C.H. [2006] (Unreported, Alberta Provincial Court) – Client charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine.  The Client’s home was searched on the basis of a “search warrant”.  Drugs were located.  Charges were withdrawn at the Preliminary Inquiry by the Crown.

R. v. M.J. [2005] (Unreported, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench) – Client charged with cultivated marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking.  Police executed a search warrant and located a mid-size marijuana grow operation.  After the preliminary inquiry, the Crown directed a stay of proceedings as a result of numerous substantive and constitutional issues revealed at the preliminary inquiry. 

Main Phone: (403) 452-8018
David G. Chow (Ext. 1)
Tonii K. Roulston (Ext. 2)
Andrea Urquhart (Ext. 3)

David Chow is a Drug Defence Lawyer

He Defends:

• Simple Possession of Drugs
• Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking
• Trafficking
• Importation
• Production
• Grow Operations
• Proceeds of Crime