R. v. T.R.
(Calgary, P. C. -- Refusing to blow/DUI) – This client was charged with impaired driving and refusing to supply a breath sample.
Calgary Criminal Lawyers
CASES
(403) 452-8018
Some Cases handled by Calgary Criminal Lawyer, David Chow
Cases presented here are only some of the cases handled by David Chow. All cases use lettering to protect the identity of the client for solicitor-client privilege purposes. The case lettering does not necessarily reflect the client's actual initials. David has successfully defended many clients not represented here. Case results are updated periodically and thus are not necessarily up-to-date.
A good reason to review the posted cases handled by David Chow is to learn some legal principles about an actual case and how that particular case was handled.
R. v. T.L.
Client was charged with criminal harassment and breaching bail conditions. Defence counsel successfully argued for a conditional discharge.
R. v. C.N.
Client was charged with numerous firearms related offences along with a number of co-accused. Crown sought the client's detention on the secondary and tertiary grounds.
R. v. S.L.
Client’s case was taken over from another lawyer at preliminary inquiry. The client was in custody.
R. v. O.M.
Client was charged with breaching bail while on release for drug charges and allegations of violence.
R. v. C.M.
Client was charged with impaired driving and over 80. He was acquitted at trial due to a lack of police reasonable grounds to arrest.
R. v. F.M.
Client was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine. He was acquitted at trial.
R. v. R.I.
Client was charged with assault causing bodily harm to a child. The client was acquitted after trial.
R. v. R.I.
Client was charged with assault causing bodily harm to a child. The client was acquitted after trial.
R. v. C.W.B.
A. J. 696 (Alta. Q. B. ) – Client was charged with first degree murder in a homicide involving a firearm.
R. v. M.O.
Client was charged with assault and mischief in a road rage incident. The client was offered a conditional discharge mid-trial and accepted.
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.
R. v. K.F.C.
Client was charged with sexual assault. After conviction, defence counsel successfully applied for a mistrial. The charges were ultimately stayed against the client.
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.
R. v. L.J. et al
The Crown sought the accused’s detention relative to possession of several firearms.
R. v. T.A.E.
Accused was charged with several counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, numerous firearms offences, cultivating marijuana and possession of ecstasy.
R. v. B.S. et al
The Crown sought the accused’s detention relative to allegations of possession for the purpose of trafficking Ketamine. After a prolonged bail hearing, the accused was released.
R. v. V.M.
The accused was charged with a convenience store robbery. The accused’s maintained the position that it was not a robbery, but a non-physical verbal assault.
R. v. P.S.
The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit.
R. v. J.W.
The accused was charged with assault. The crown relied upon videotape evidence purporting to capture the incident. Despite the videotape evidence, the Crown withdrew the charges mid-trial.