Pardon and Record Suspension Appeal Lawyers

In 2020, the Firm conducted one of the most complex pardon appeals in its File No. 19****8. The client had 15 convictions in three separate cities over several years. As a result of the client’s extensive history of substance abuse, violence and criminal behaviour, his record suspension application was denied by the Parole Board. Over nearly half a year, the Firm built a portfolio for the offender demonstrating the underlying reasons for his previous criminality, and why they were no longer present today. After demonstrating that the client was of good character the client was granted a record suspension for all his past criminal convictions.

In 2023, Donich Law secured a pardon for a client with a lengthy criminal history in Case No. 3****5. After initially applying for a pardon for several criminal offences including mischief, assault, failure to comply with a probation order, breach of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and theft under $5,000, the client received a proposal to deny from the Parole Board. The Parole Board cited two Provincial Offences tickets from the previous five years, citing this as evidence of the client’s bad conduct. Donich Law provided legal representations to address the Board’s concerns and the client’s Pardon was granted.

In 2015, the Firm represented an individual applying for a record suspension after being convicted of assault and possession of a schedule 1 substance in File No. 15****3. The Parole Board proposed denying the client’s application stating that he had not been of good character since his last conviction. He had been investigated and prosecuted for similar offences and 2003 and 2008. The Firm was able to illustrate that the client’s past offences were dated, occurred when he was young and during a particularly difficult period in his life. This was contrasted with the client’s current lifestyle to show that he had overcome many obstacles to become a functioning member of society who is of good character.

In 2014, the Firm represented a client whose record suspension application had been denied in File No. 14****3. The Parole Board sought to deny the application after the client was convicted of a subsequent Highway Traffic Act offence, siting that as evidence that he had not been of good conduct. The Firm was able to demonstrate that the client had changed his life for the better and the record suspension application was ultimately granted. The Firm was required to produce extensive legal submissions related to the matter including evidence from his prior court proceedings.

In File No. 14****2, the Firm represented a client applying for a record suspension after being convicted of robbery with violence in 2002. The Parole Board proposed denying the client’s application as a result of numerous traffic violations. The Firm argued that the traffic violations did not offer an accurate picture of the client’s character and ultimately secured the record suspension on appeal. The Firm produced a significant volume of legal submissions and evidence to support the underlying prejudice the client was facing as a result of being denied. This ultimately led to a reconsideration of the Parole Board’s position on appeal.

In 2022, the Firm represented a client served with a Proposal to Deny from the Parole Board in Case No. 8****. Having had applied for a record suspension for an impaired driving and failure or refusal to comply with demand convictions, the Parole Board proposed to deny the client’s application, citing subsequent negative interactions with law enforcement in the preceding five year period. The Board cited three specific incidents, a ticket for speeding, a ticket for disobeying a stop sign, and a warning for speeding. The Board alleged that these incidents were not reflective of a citizen who demonstrates good conduct. The Firm provided lengthy submissions to the Board, addressing their concerns, and providing a more wholesome picture of the client. The Record Suspension was ultimately granted.

In 2017, the Firm represented a prominent businessman in File No. 17****1. In that case, the Parole Board was attempting to revoke the client’s record suspension for assault. The Parole Board sought to revoke the pardon because of a subsequent conviction for impaired driving. The Firm pulled the transcripts from the impaired guilty plea and was able to show the offence was not nearly as aggravating as the Parole Board initially believed. Ultimately, the Firm was able to reinstate the prior record suspension notwithstanding a further conviction for impaired driving.