• 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. Goeppel, 2017 YKTC 61
  • R. v. Goeppel, 2017 YKTC 62
  • R. v. Bradshaw, 2017 SCC 35
    Link to Webcast (Mr. Fowler appears at 2:27:38)
  • R. v. Hamzehali, 2017 BCCA 290
  • R. v. Munro, 2017 YKTC 46
  • R. v. Turner, 2017 YKTC 31
  • R. v. Barr, 2016 BCSC 193
  • R. v. Davidson, 2015 BCPC 335
  • R. v. Bradshaw, 2015 BCCA 195
  • R. v. Dhillon, 2015 BCSC 1298
  • R. v. Snelson, 2015 BCSC 1882
  • R. v. Leung, 2014 BCSC 1894
  • R. v. D.G., 2014 BCCA 84
  • R. v. Butorac, 2013 BCCA 421
  • R. v. Law and Lai, 2013 BCPC 393
  • R. v. Leung, 2013 BCSC 1230
  • R. v. Cocks, 2012 BCSC 1334
  • R. v. L.P., 2012 BCPC 6
  • R. v. Smith 2011 BCSC 1695
  • R. v. Butorac, 2010 BCSC 908
  • R. v. Smith, 2010 BCCA 35
  • R. v. Wing and Richard, 2009 YKTC 113
  • R. v. McKenzie, 2009 BCSC 1820
  • R. v. Kinley, 2009 BCCA 363
  • R. v. Lewis, 2009 BCCA 244
  • R. v. Markovitch, 2008 BCSC 1545
  • R. v. Giles, 2008 BCSC 367
  • R. v. Dhaliwal, 2007 BSCS 1936
  • R. v. Stauffer, 2007 BCCA 7
  • R. v. Daunt, 2007 YKCA 14 – 2007/11/20
  • R. v. Rodrigue, 2007 YKCA 9
  • R. v. Nathalie Gettliffe-Grant, 2006 BCSC 1944
  • R. v. Nathalie Gettliffe-Grant, 2006 BCSC 1943
  • R. v. Lewis, 2006 BCSC 1603
  • R. v. B.R.W. , 2006 BCSC 2102
  • R. v. M.P., 2006 BCCA 236; [2006] B.C.J. No. 1062
  • R. v. Popov, 2006 BCSC 34; [2006] B.C.J. No. 38
  • R. v. Daunt, 2005 YHSC 34
  • R. v. Madrusan, 2005 BCCA 609; [2005] B.C.J. No. 2658
  • R. v. Proulx, 2005, BCSC 184, [2005] B.C.J. No. 272
  • R. v. Anderson, 2005 BCSC 228; [2005] B.C.J. No. 344
  • R. v. Pilarinos, 2002 BCSC 1267; [2002] B.C.J. No. 1958
  • R. v. Pilarinos, 2002 BCSC 452; [2002] B.C.J. No. 609
  • R. v. Chan, 2001 BCSC 1180 (CanLII); [2001] B.C.J. No. 1689
  • R. v. Porter, 2001 BCPC 0191 (CanLII); [2001] B.C.J. No. 1826
  • R. v. Johal, 2001 BCCA 436 (CanLII); [2001] B.C.J. No. 1404
  • Brar v. Sahota, 1998 CanLII 6477 (BCCA)
  • R. v. Kliman, 1998 CanLII 15048 (BCSC); [1998] B.C.J. No. 1283
  • R. v. Kliman, 1998 CanlII 15078
  • R. v. Mordo, 1997 CanLII 2990 (BCCA)
  • R. v. Mordo, 1996 CanLII 2077 (BCCA)
  • R. v. Kliman, 1996 CanLII 8454 (BCSC)
  • R. v. Roy, 1996 CanLII 2934 (BCCA); [1996] B.C.J. No. 748

R. v. L.P. 2012 BCPC 6

LINK TO CASE
The accused was a young person convicted of stabbing a fellow student at school. The crown urged the court to send the young person to jail. However, the Youth Court Judge accepted the submission of defence counsel that society was best protected if the young person rehabilitation could continue in the community. Medical evidence submitted by the defence established that the young person was facing numerous mental health issues at the time of the offence but was now doing considerably better.

R. v. Smith 2011 BCSC 1695

LINK TO CASE
After being arrested and charged with murder, Mr. Smith was interviewed by the police. After hearing submissions from Mr. Fowler about the application of the Charter of Rights the court ruled that the statement was not admissible in evidence.

R. v. Lange and Boucher 2011 YKCA 7

LINK TO CASE
This was an appeal from convictions for murder. Mr. Fowler was appointed amicus curiae by the court to assist Mr. Boucher present his appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed that there had been legal errors in the first trial and ordered a new trial.