Criminal Defense Lawyer BC

D. Gosal & Associates Case Outcomes

The accused was a Vancouver resident, charged with Impaired Driving, Driving over .08, and Dangerous driving, in contravention of the Criminal Code. After plea discussion, on points of law, and questions of fact, all criminal charges were dropped, and the accused could continue his employment at Safeway, and seek advancement without worry. R. v Sangha BCPC, Vancouver B.C

The Accused had no criminal record, and was charged with Impaired Driving and Over. 08. On the second day of trial, the Court held that the BAC Datamaster C ticket be suppressed at trial, based on a finding of an unreasonable search and seizure, in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Accused was granted his No Evidence Motion, and did not receive any criminal convictions. R. v. Pin Wang, BCPC.

Accused, a Canada Customs Officer (Canadian Border Services Agent), charged with driving with a blood alcohol concentration of over. 08. After discussions of questions of fact, and issues of law, the criminal charges were dismissed against the officer. R. v. Anonymous (Kamloops)

D. charged with impaired driving and driving over the legal limit of .08, with readings of .14, and .14. Through his counsel, Mr. Gosal, applied to have the evidence obtained from the breathalyzer readings excluded for alleged Charter violations. The accused argued that there were no grounds present for the demand to be made, and thus there was an unlawful search and seizure, as well as a failure to advise him of his s.10(b) rights to counsel. The Learned and Honourable Judge Held: that the breathalyzer evidence would be excluded — The accused’s s.10(b) rights were violated — An assertion of the right to counsel was made, and that a Prosper warning was required, but not provided. This was conscriptive evidence, and its admission would result in an unfair trial and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Tickets suppressed. R. v. Kiani (BCPC)(SRY)

Accused arrested for DUI, with breathalyzer indicating .14 and .14. After retaining D. Gosal Law Corporation, accused testified as to his drinking pattern after meeting his significant other at the Shark Club, a sports bar and grille. He was acquitted of blowing over .08, and was allowed to retain his job at UPS as a driver. R. v. Singh (BCPC)(VCR)

D. was charged with refusal to provide a sample into the Approved Screening Device, under the Criminal Code, after being pulled over at a sobriety roadblock. His 3 months ICBC driving prohibition was reversed, and after discussions of law, and questions of fact, the criminal case was dismissed where inadequate grounds existed for the demand and delay issues. R. v. Samy (BCPC)(VCR)

Defendant youth, charged with dangerous driving on separate occasions, driving a lexus SUV, possession of stolen vehicle Infiniti, and taking motor vehicle without permission, and causing an RCMP helicopter police chase. D. was released with time served after sentencing hearing, and placed on supervision, with conditions, and allowed to return back to his family. R. v. Anonymous (BCPC)(SRY)

Defendant was charged with Refusal to Submit to a Breath Demand, and Impaired Driving under the Criminal Code. After discussion on questions of law, and issues of facts and evidence, including Charter issues, the Defendant was permitted to escape criminal liability, and was sanctioned under provincial legislation, without the branding of a criminal record. R. v. Dhillon, BCPC, Surrey

Defendant was a commercial pilot, and was facing charges under 253(a) and 253(b) of the Criminal Code, for impaired driving and driving over.08. A conviction would have severe adverse consequences for his future as a transport pilot in North America under Transport Canada and FAA licensing regulations. After discussions on questions of law, and issues of fact with the Crown Prosecution, the criminal charges were dismissed, and a plea to an infraction under the Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC, was entered into. R. v. Anonymous

Defendant-Accountant was a Canadian citizen in WA State to visit friends. He was charged with DUI under the Revised Code of Washington in Whatcom County. After discussions of questions of law and issues of fact, the gross misdemeanor DUI charge was dismissed, and a plea bargain reached, where there was imposition of ignition interlock, probation. State v. Anonymous

Defendant worked as a banker, and was charged with Driving While Prohibited under the Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC. The matter was not able to be resolved pre-trial, and the defendant was ultimately acquitted as there was a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s knowledge of the prohibition. The culpable mental state had not been proved by the Crown beyond the required burden. R. V. S.S.N.

A young driver was facing a 1 year driving prohibition from the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles for his unsatisfactory driving record. After making appropriate submissions, the driver was granted a reduction of 6 months for his prohibition Marwaha, Surrey, BC

The driver had received a prohibition for 5 months from the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. After submissions to the Superintendent, the Prohibition was remitted entirely, and the Driver could drive. In re. MacDonald, Vancouver

Accused, a long-haul truck driver, was given a Notice of Intent to Prohibit for 1 year by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, for an apparent out of state conviction for DUI in WA State. After preparing the case, and making submissions on points of law, the Superintendent remitted the Prohibition in its entirety, and no suspension went into effect. In Re J.G

Applicant was a Commercial Truck Driver in Alberta, and was having issues regarding relicensing in British Columbia. After submissions to the Superintendent, the Superintendent agreed to allow the Applicant to test for his Commercial License. In Re Gill

Applicant had an Administrative Driving Prohibition under s. 94.1 of the Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC, after being charged with Impaired Driving and Refusal to provide a breath/blood sample under s.254 of the Criminal Code. The Applicant was married, with children, and worked for B.C. Transit, as a Bus Driver. After reviewing the disclosure from the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, Mr. Gosal made a number of submissions, and the proposed Driving Suspension was revoked, and the Applicant was allowed to drive and continue to earn for his family. In Re Singh

The accused was a Canadian truck driver crossing the US/Canada Peace Arch Border into Canada. His truck and trailer were searched by the RCMP and the Integrated Border Patrol, resulting in the seizure of several bricks of cocaine, with an estimated street value of over $300,000. The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking, and importation of a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine, in contravention of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Federal Crown Counsel was initially seeking pre-trial detention. D. Gosal & Associates was retained, and filed a brief, case law, prepared affidavits, and a motion. Result: the accused was released on bail with conditions pending his trial.  R.V. Sidhu, BCPC Surrey, BC

Defendant was at Boston Pizza in Delta, BC, and after the police arrived to deal with a commotion inside the pizza parlour, Defendant was investigated for possessions of drugs for trafficking. After discussion on questions of law, and issues of fact, the charged were plea bargained down to simple possession, and D. avoided a lengthy incarceration period. R. v. Anonymous (BCPC)(SRY)

Accused had a clean record, and was charged by the Federal Crown, by Indictment with possession for the purposes of trafficking in a controlled substance, to wit: cocaine (scheduled substance), in contravention of 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, R.S.C., in an alleged Dial-A-Dope Scheme. After briefing the issues, and conducting the cross examination of the Crown’s witnesses, the Court ultimately acquitted the Accused. The Court did not reach its decision on lost or destroyed evidence motion, under the Charter, but on issues of continuity of the evidence of the nature of the substance. These were not minor issues of continuity. In the Court’s opinion, the inconsistencies relating to critical exhibits went to the heart of the Crown’s case. They had failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance found at the scene was a prohibited substance R.v. Marwaha, [2004] BCJ. No. 278, BCPC, Surrey

Applicants had had their fireworks seized by police and city officials prior to Halloween. After discussions on questions of fact and issues of law with counsel for the City, a large portion of the seized chattels were returned to the owner. In Re Brar

A Canadian truck driver was charged with Reckless Driving in WA State, in contravention of the Revised Code of Washington. His livelihood was on the line, as he was a long haul truck driver, and a criminal conviction would effectively terminate his chances for crossing the border and working. After discussions of points of law and questions of fact with the State’s Attorney, the criminal charges were dropped, and the accused admitted to a traffic infraction. R. v. Khosa, Blaine, WA

Defendant was charged with Dangerous Driving, under the Criminal Code, and facing an automatic breach of insurance if she was found guilty of the alleged crime. She suffered terrible injuries, as did others, in a horrific accident, during a severe weather storm. After involved discussions with the Crown Counsel office, a disposition was reached for joint submission where the Defendant’s conduct was found to violate a non-criminal statute, and thus avoiding the civil consequences, and a criminal record. R. v. Bopari BCPC, Surrey

Defendants were charged with historical sexual assault, spanning over 3 incidents, and aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon. After a lengthy trial, including extensive cross examination of the complainant and questions of credibility, the Crown dismissed the case and accused were vindicated, and no criminal record. R. v. Dhami et al. (BCPC)(Sry)

Defendant charged with spousal assault under s.266, after allegations by complainant, of Defendant hitting her after a heated discussion about in-laws. After discussions of law, and questions of fact, with respect to the evidence, the charge was dismissed, and the accused did not receive a criminal record. R. v. Virk (BCPC)(New Westminster)

Defendant charged with 2nd assault on wife. Defendant case results in no conviction after discussions on questions of law and issues of fact. R. v. Bikumundla (BCPC)(VCR)

Defendant charged with assault of his spouse. After attending counseling sessions, and marriage counseling, the couple are happily together, expecting a new baby, and no criminal record for the accused. R. v. Anonymous (BCPC)(VCR)

Representing a veteran firefighter in a criminal harassment case involving his estranged spouse. After discussions on questions of law ,and issues of fact, and lengthy submissions before the trial judge; Defendant received an absolute discharge, and received no criminal record. R. v. Anonymous (BCPC)(SRY)

The accused was charged with sexual assault of an “auto-part delivery girl” at his car transmission shop. The allegations involved the groping and pinching of her breasts. D. Gosal & Associates was retained, and conducted an inspection of the purported Crime Scene, and was prepared for trial. The charges were eventually dropped, and the Accused returned to his work and wife. R. V Narayan BCPC, Surrey B.C

The Accused, a New York resident, and a former Analyst at a prestigious Wall Street company, was in Vancouver to meet Korean investors and start up an internet gaming company. The Accused was charged with sexual assault (intercourse without consent) of a lady he had met at the Sheraton Hotel. The Crown proceeded by Indictment (akin to a High Class Felony), and was seeking his detention on grounds that the Accused was at flight risk and had minimal contacts with British Columbia. The Accused hired Dil Gosal and Paul Del Rossi to contest the Crown’s position. Result: after submissions of Crown and defence counsel, the Court held that the Defendant would be released on bail, with sufficient surety. Regina v Koh BCPC, Surrey B.C

The Accused was charged with Domestic Violence. After preparing for trial, a Stay of Proceedings was entered by the Crown, and the Accused received no record. R. v. Quasmi, BCPC, Surrey

Defendant Husband was charged with Assault s.266. After obtaining counseling, and favourable evidence regarding rehabilitation, the charges were dismissed by way of a Stay of Proceedings. R.v. Randhawa, BCPC, Vancouver

The Accused was facing obstruction of a peace officer charge, and had failed to attend to court. A bench warrant was issued, and an arrest warrant issued. The Accused hired D. Gosal, and the Accused did not have to remain in jail, and was released within an hour of arrest. R. v. Sangha, BCPC (Surrey)

Accused, Iqbal Vinepal charged with Murder Second Degree, and also Attempted Murder. Gosal retained and after discussions of fact, issues of law, and bail hearing in BC Supreme Court, Accused Released on Bail, with Conditions. [2010. R. v. Vinepal]

The Accused was wanted for questioning relating to a fatal pedestrian motor vehicle accident. The Accused, through counsel, surrendered himself, and the RCMP arrested and charged him under s.249 of the Criminal Code, RSC, for Dangerous Driving Causing Death, and also Failing to Offer Assistance or Remain at the Scene. Crown sought his detention pending trial. After a contested bail hearing, the, Honourable Court allowed for the pretrial release of the defendant pending his trial. R. v. D.M., BCPC, Surrey

The Accused was charged with uttering threats and assault. The Crown was seeking the Accused’s Detention on public safety grounds. The Accused’s family retained Mr. Gosal at 7pm, and after a contested Bail Hearing, the Accused was released on Surety Bail. R. v. Sian, BCPC

A mother and daughter were detained and arrested for theft of lipstick from Superstore in Surrey, BC. After appropriate submissions, they were given an opportunity for diversion from Court, and upon successful completion of their program, the case was dismissed. R. v. Khosa, BCPC, Surrey, BC

Defendant had stolen a number of funds from her employer over the course of several months. Internal theft s.334 and conversion of the funds were alleged. Defendant had an unstable background, and personal circumstances were such, that after a review of the Principles of Sentencing in s.718, Conditional Sentence Order under s.742 was imposed, which allowed the Defendant to obtain counseling, and serve her jail sentence in the community. R. v. Dhaliwal, BCPC, Surrey

Defendant worked at WalMart and was facing a potential jail sentence for involvement in an internal theft ring. After submissions, the Court found to its satisfaction that service of the sentence in the community would not be endangering the safety of the community, and was consistent in the principles of sentencing. Conditional Sentence Granted. R. v. Sidhu, BCPC, New Westminster

A husband and wife were alleged to have committed theft of lipstick and a number of other articles from the Great Canadian Superstore. The cases were successfully taken out of the court process, and into a Diversion Program, and the alternate measures resulted in the successful rehabilitation and no criminal charges. In Re. R.D.

A mother and daughter were arrested for an allegation of theft of articles from Overwaitea’s Save On Foods grocery chain. After discussions of fact, and issues of law with the Crown, a diversion program was entered into, and successfully completed by the clients. The clients were rehabilitated, alerted to the seriousness of the matter, and avoided criminal charges. In Re. HB, KB.

Defendant was a Federal Correctional Officer, and charged, along with others, in a conspiracy to commit theft. After discussion on issues of fact, evidence, and law, the charges were dismissed by the Crown directing a Stay of Proceedings. R v. NK., BCPC (Surrey)

The Claimant purchased a used Honda CR-V from Jim Pattison Toyota Dealership in Surrey, and was informed by the salesman that the car had no prior accidents. The Claimant relied on those representations, and purchased the vehicle. She eventually found out that there were in fact four previous ICBC claims, including two major accidents totaling over $10,000 in repair costs. Two days before trial, she hired D. Gosal & Associates. After a day of trial, the Honourable Judge found for the Claimant, holding that the Defendant had failed to disclose on the Motor Vehicle Purchase Agreement that the Honda had been involved in prior accidents, and that the dealership had known of the accidents. The Court held that there was a breach of the Motor Dealer Act Regulations, which required full disclosure of prior accidents. The Claimant was awarded nearly $3,000 in damages and costs. Bola v. Jim Pattison Industries, dba Jim Pattison Toyota. BCPC, Surrey, BC

 Claimant was injured in a car accident in 2004, with injuries to his neck, back, and shoulders. After discussions on questions of facts, issues of law, and relevant case law, the matter was settled pre-trial for $15,000 gross. In Re J.S.D., Surrey, BC

Claimant was injured in a car accident in 2004, with injuries to her teeth, neck, back, and shoulders. After discussions on questions of facts, issues of law, and relevant case law, the matter was settled pre-trial for $7,000 gross, plus over $5,000 in dental repair work. In Re S.J.K., Surrey, BC

 The injured party was offered $2,000 as a full and final settlement of her injury claims. She retained D. Gosal, and the case was ultimately settled for $8,500 gross, after discovery of a strain, and soft tissue injuries. In Re S.R.., Vancouver, BC

 Defendant was injured in a car accident. Despite having insurance, ICBC denied the claim for injury, saying that the claim was a Low Velocity Claim. After filing a lawsuit, and Settlement Conference to no avail, the case was finally settled before trial for $6,500 gross. In Re. S.P.T.

We were rear ended by man in a van, who was arrested for Drunk Driving. We made our claim to ICBC, but they said the accident was a “Low Velocity Impact” or LVI claim, and that ICBC would not be offering any settlement money. We were injured, through no fault of our own, and went to D. Gosal & Associates. Mr. Gosal and his staff guided us through our very tough times. My wife has now settled her claim for $14,500, and my claim was settled for over $19,000 gross. K. Padda, Surrey, BC

The Claimant was struck by another car, and ICBC stated that the claim fell under its Low Velocity Impact Criteria. ICBC did not wish to compensate for a tort claim. After filing suit in Small Claims Court, D. Gosal recovered $4,000 gross for his clients. BCPC (Surrey)

Plaintiff was involved in an accident in Newton, and suffered injuries to her neck, shoulders, and back area. The claim was ultimately settled for over $6,100 gross. In re. GKB

Husband and wife were injured in a car accident through no fault of their own. ICBC had offered a settlement of $4,500 for both people. After being retained, the firm settled the matter out of court for $11, 300 gross. In Re S.P.

Plaintiff was hit by another vehicle. The driver of the other vehicle fabricated a story and ICBC denied coverage for injuries, pain & suffering, and lost wages. After being retained, and conducting an independent investigation, including witness interview, the fabrication was confirmed. ICBC changed its position in light of the new evidence, and Plaintiff settled her claim for over $10,000 gross. In Re. Randhawa

Plaintiff, a respected Real Estate Agent, had his car vandalized at his place of residence. ICBC denied the insurance coverage, under “suspicious circumstances.” After retaining Dil Gosal, an action was commenced against ICBC alleging a breach of the insurance contract. The matter was ultimately resolved by settlement before trial. B .v. ICBC, BCPC (Surrey)

The Accused was detained by a Learned Provincial Court Judge on charges of Attempted Murder, and Drug Trafficking. D. Gosal was hired to handle the Appeal of the Bail Detention Order. Gosal & Associates went to work and prepared an Appellate Brief, Notice of Motion, Affidavits, and other case law and materials. Both the Federal Prosecutor and Regional Provincial Crown were seeking continued detention of the Accused. After conducting a contested Bail Review in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the Accused was Ordered released upon the deposit of sufficient Surety. R. v. Nair, BCSC, Vancouver

Defendant was charged with Attempted Murder. Defendant elected a Preliminary Inquiry in Provincial Court, and several Crown witnesses were called to testify. During the Inquiry, Defence met with the Crown, and had discussions on questions of law and issues of fact and evidence. The attempted murder charge was stayed by the Crown, and Defendant was released on time served for the remaining offences. R. v. R.N., BCPC, Vancouver

Defendant was charged with obstruction of a peace officer at a Skytrain station. After discussions on issues of facts and questions of law, the Crown did not proceed against the Defendant, and he suffered no criminal record. R. v. Pang, BCPC, Surrey

Defendant had procured a false passport and used it gain access to a point of entry. Crown proceeded by way of a multi-count Indictment. After discussions on questions of fact, and issues of law, a Plea Agreement was reached where the Defendant did not obtain a jail sentence. R.v Krishanapillai, BCPC, Richmond

Defendant was charged with assault with a weapon and common assault involving an incident near a seven eleven and subway store. The mater went to trial, and the Honourable Judge acquitted the defendant on both counts. R. v. S.M. et al., BCPC, Surrey

Defendant was charged with uttering threats against an estranged member of the family. He retained D. Gosal, and the matter was resolved prior to the matter entering court. R. A.S. BCPC, Surrey

Note: Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and that the amount recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.