Karin Blok was called to the Bar in British Columbia in May of 2013.
Karin articled with Fowler and Smith after graduating from law school in April of 2012. During her first two years of law school at the University of Saskatchewan she volunteered with Pro Bono Students Canada and the U of S Community Outreach Program. In the summer of 2011 she worked at Merrill Long & Co. in Nanaimo, B.C. practicing in areas including family, criminal and civil law. While attending the University of British Columbia in her third year of law school she volunteered with the Law Students Legal Advice Program providing supervised legal advice on the Downtown Eastside and representing clients in matters such as assault and landlord/tennant disputes.
Karin practices in the areas of criminal law and administrative law. She has experience in both jury and non-jury trials defending clients against allegations of murder, manslaughter, assault, drug offences, fraud and theft. She also has experience defending charges under the Wildlife Act and the Immigration and Refuge Protection Act. Karin also assists clients with obtaining or retaining their Transportation Security Clearances under the Marine Transportation Security Act. She has appeared in all levels of court in British Columbia, in Federal Court and at the Supreme Court of Canada. In September 2017 she became a member of the Law Society of the Yukon.
Member of the Law Society of British Columbia
Member, Law Society of the Yukon
Other Professional Activities
Karin is a member of the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia and the Criminal Defence Advocacy Society. She volunteers regularly with Access Pro Bono providing summary legal advice. In 2017 she co-authored a paper for the 2017 CBA National Criminal Justice Conference, “Regina v. Pino: developments in the Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Charter and the ‘Obtained in a Manner’ Requirement”.
Education and Training
Karin received a Bachelor of Arts from Simon Fraser University in 2006. She completed the first two years of her law degree at the University of Saskatchewan before transferring to the University of British Columbia for her final year. She graduated with distinction from the University of Saskatchewan College of Law in 2012.
- R. v. Penner, 2019 BCCA 76
Successful appeal from manslaughter conviction (jury trial). Appeal court found that the trial judge erred in his charge to the jury. The charge (instructions to the jury) was inconsistent and confusing with regard to the elements of the two offences such that it was possible the jury convicted for manslaughter without having considered an essential element of the offence that had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- R. v. Grant, 2019 BCCA 369
Appeal allowed and new trial ordered in sexual assault case. Appeal successfully challenged how the judge handled the evaluation of the credibility of the accused and the complainant. The appeal court also found that the cross-examination of the accused on his sexual history was prejudicial and irrelevant, and that the judge misused the evidence in treating it as diminishing the accused’s credibility.
- R. v. Park, 2018 BCSC 1632
Accused acquitted of second-degree murder. The trial judge concluded that the Crown had failed to prove the identity of the person who inflicted the victim’s injuries and failed to prove that the victim’s injuries resulted from an unlawful act as opposed to an accident. The trial judge agreed with the defence that the Crown’s theory of motive was “preposterous.”
- R. v. Dick, 2018 BCCA 343
Appeal allowed and a new trial ordered for accused convicted of sexual assault. The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous judgment, agreed that the trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons for accepting the evidence of the complainant and rejecting the evidence of the accused.
- R. v. Chung, 2018 BCPC 133
Accused acquitted of dangerous driving causing death. The court recognized the fatal and tragic consequences arising from the accused’s excessive speed but agreed with the defence that there was at least a reasonable doubt that the accused’s conduct constituted a marked departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent driver. Cross examination at trial revealed that the accused’s excessive speeding was “momentary.”
- R. v. Bradshaw 2017 SCC 35
Link to Webcast
- R. v. Walker 2017 BCSC 1301
- R. v. Orr 2016 BCSC 2062
- R. v. Orr 2016 BCSC 2064
- R. v. Davidson 2015 BCPC 335
- R. v. Leung 2014 BCSC 1894
- R. v. Law and Lai 2013 BCPC 393
- R. v. Leung 2013 BCSC 1230