Overview of Pre-Trial Motions in Calgary Criminal Cases
In Calgary’s criminal justice process, pre-trial motions are legal applications brought before a judge prior to the commencement of a trial.
Purpose of Pre-Trial Motions in Alberta’s Criminal Justice System
Pre-trial motions serve several purposes within Alberta’s legal framework:
- Protect the rights of the accused under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
- Challenge the admissibility of evidence such as statements, search results, or surveillance footage.
- Clarify or narrow legal issues to streamline the trial process and avoid unnecessary delays.
- Seek judicial directions on procedural or evidentiary matters.
Role of the Calgary Provincial Court and Court of King’s Bench
Pre-trial motions in Calgary are typically heard in the Calgary Provincial Court for summary conviction matters and lower-level indictable offences. More serious indictable offences, or those involving constitutional challenges, may proceed to the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta.
Each level of court has its own procedural timelines and requirements. Criminal defence lawyers must be familiar with local court practices, as failure to file or argue motions properly can harm a client’s case.
How Pre-Trial Motions Can Impact Trial Strategy and Outcomes
A well-argued pre-trial motion can:
- Exclude crucial Crown evidence due to breaches of Charter rights (e.g., unlawful search or detention).
- Result in a stay of proceedings, meaning the charges are effectively withdrawn.
- Negotiate a more favourable resolution, as the Crown may reassess the strength of its case if key evidence is struck.
- Shape jury instructions or judge-alone trial boundaries, if the matter proceeds to trial.
Pre-trial motions are a cornerstone of effective criminal defence in Calgary. An experienced Calgary criminal lawyer will assess the case early, identify potential motion opportunities, and use them to protect their client’s rights and aim for the best possible legal outcome.
Charter Applications: Challenging Police Conduct
Common Motion: Charter of Rights and Freedoms Violation
A Charter application typically alleges that the police violated the accused’s fundamental rights during the investigation or arrest. Common allegations include:
- Unlawful search or seizure without a warrant or valid legal authority
- Arbitrary detention or arrest, where there was no lawful basis to hold the individual
- Failure to advise the right to counsel or to allow access to a lawyer in a timely manner
These types of Charter breaches can seriously compromise the fairness of a trial and form the basis for excluding key evidence.
Section 8 (Search and Seizure), Section 9 (Detention), and Section 10 (Right to Counsel) Violations
Calgary defence lawyers regularly file motions under the following Charter sections:
- Section 8: Protects against unreasonable search and seizure. For example, if police search a vehicle or home without a warrant or lawful justification.
- Section 9: Guards against arbitrary detention. For instance, stopping someone without reasonable suspicion can trigger this violation.
- Section 10: Ensures the right to be informed of reasons for arrest and to retain and instruct counsel without delay. Violations include failing to give access to a lawyer promptly after arrest.
A skilled Calgary criminal lawyer will closely examine the circumstances of police conduct to identify if any of these rights were violated.
Remedies Sought: Exclusion of Evidence Under Section 24(2)
If a Charter breach is established, the defence can request a remedy under Section 24(2) of the Charter. This section allows a judge to exclude evidence obtained in a manner that infringed on Charter rights, if admitting it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
For example, if an unlawful search led police to discover drugs or weapons, a successful Charter motion could result in that evidence being ruled inadmissible—often weakening or entirely collapsing the Crown’s case.
Motion to Exclude Evidence
Another essential pre-trial strategy used by a Calgary criminal lawyer is the motion to exclude evidence that is inadmissible, unreliable, or unfairly prejudicial. These motions aim to prevent the Crown from presenting certain types of evidence at trial, particularly if its integrity or collection is questionable.
Challenging Admissibility of Confessions, Surveillance, or Seized Property
Defence counsel may argue that:
- A confession was not given voluntarily, perhaps due to police intimidation, trickery, or denial of access to counsel.
- Surveillance footage or audio recordings were obtained in violation of privacy rights or are incomplete and misleading.
- Seized property, such as weapons or narcotics, lacks a clear chain of custody or was obtained without proper legal authority.
In Calgary criminal courts, the onus is on the Crown to prove that evidence—especially confessions—was obtained fairly and can be admitted without violating legal safeguards.
Allegations of Improper Collection or Contamination of Evidence
Motions to exclude often highlight issues such as:
- Breaks in the chain of custody, casting doubt on whether the evidence presented at trial is the same as that originally seized.
- Contamination of physical evidence, such as fingerprints, DNA samples, or blood evidence, during police handling or forensic testing.
- Lack of proper documentation or inconsistent police notes, which may undermine the credibility of evidence collection.
Such allegations are serious and, if proven, may result in key evidence being excluded—sometimes leading to an acquittal.
Use of Voir Dire Hearings in Calgary Courtrooms
These motions are typically addressed through a voir dire—a type of pre-trial hearing held without the jury present (if the case involves a jury). During a voir dire:
- Both the Crown and defence present arguments and witness testimony related to the contested evidence.
- The judge rules on whether the evidence is admissible based on legal standards, Charter compliance, and relevance to the case.
Application for Disclosure
A fundamental step in defending any criminal charge in Calgary is ensuring full and timely disclosure from the Crown. A Calgary criminal lawyer may file an application for disclosure if the prosecution fails to provide all relevant information, which is a Charter-protected right under Canadian law.
Requesting Full Disclosure from the Crown Under Stinchcombe Principles
The landmark Supreme Court case R. v. Stinchcombe established that the Crown has a legal duty to disclose all relevant evidence—whether it supports the prosecution’s case or not. This includes:
- Police notes and reports
- Witness statements (including prior inconsistent statements)
- Video and audio recordings
- Forensic evidence and expert reports
The right to disclosure is ongoing, meaning the Crown must continue to disclose new evidence as it becomes available, even during trial.
Addressing Delays or Missing Police Notes, Witness Statements, or Video Evidence
In Calgary, criminal defence lawyers frequently encounter situations where:
- Police notes are incomplete or missing altogether
- Witness statements have not been provided, especially from key individuals
- Body-worn camera footage or surveillance video has not been disclosed or was destroyed without justification
These gaps can seriously prejudice the defence’s ability to prepare and present a full answer and defence, which is a violation of Section 7 of the Charter.
When disclosure issues arise, a motion is brought before a judge—often in Calgary Provincial Court—requesting immediate release of the materials or, in some cases, a remedy for late or missing disclosure.
Legal Strategy When the Crown Fails to Meet Disclosure Obligations
If disclosure is delayed or incomplete, defence counsel may seek remedies such as:
- Adjournment to allow time to review newly received materials
- Exclusion of late-disclosed evidence, especially if it prejudices the accused’s right to a fair trial
- A judicial stay of proceedings, in extreme cases, where disclosure failures amount to an abuse of process
A skilled Calgary criminal lawyer uses disclosure applications not only to uncover critical evidence, but also to apply pressure on the Crown and strengthen negotiation positions for possible withdrawal or resolution of charges.
Motion to Dismiss for Unreasonable Delay (Jordan Application)
A Motion to Dismiss for Unreasonable Delay, commonly known as a Jordan application, is a powerful legal tool used by Calgary criminal lawyers when a client’s right to be tried within a reasonable time has been violated. These motions are based on the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in R. v. Jordan (2016), which established strict time limits for completing criminal proceedings.
Time Limits for Completing a Trial as Set Out in R. v. Jordan
Under the Jordan framework, the courts imposed clear ceilings on the amount of time it should take to bring an accused person to trial after charges are laid:
- 18 months for cases tried in Provincial Court (e.g., Calgary Provincial Court)
- 30 months for cases tried in Superior Court (e.g., Court of King’s Bench of Alberta)
If a case exceeds these benchmarks without exceptional circumstances, the delay is presumed to be unreasonable and charges may be dismissed.
How Calgary Criminal Lawyers Use Jordan Motions to Seek Dismissal of Charges
When delays occur—due to court backlogs, Crown inefficiencies, or poor case management—defence counsel may file a Jordan motion. This involves:
- Calculating the total delay from the date charges were laid to the anticipated or actual trial conclusion
- Subtracting defence-caused delays (such as adjournments requested by the defence)
- Assessing whether the remaining time exceeds the Jordan ceiling
- Presenting evidence that the delay was not justified by exceptional circumstances, such as complex proceedings or unforeseeable events
If the court agrees, the charges will be stayed, meaning the prosecution is halted and the accused is free from further legal jeopardy on those charges.
Key Time Benchmarks for Provincial and Superior Courts
The critical Jordan time benchmarks are:
- 18 months for trials in Calgary Provincial Court, which handles the majority of criminal matters including summary convictions and many indictable offences
- 30 months for trials in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, typically reserved for more serious indictable charges or jury trials
A seasoned Calgary criminal lawyer monitors timelines from day one, raising concerns early and filing Jordan applications when necessary to protect their client’s Charter rights under Section 11(b).
Bail Review or Variation Motions
Bail review or variation motions are crucial pre-trial applications filed by a Calgary criminal lawyer to challenge, loosen, or modify existing bail conditions imposed after an initial release. These motions ensure that bail conditions remain fair, reasonable, and consistent with the accused’s rights and current circumstances.
Pre-Trial Motions to Challenge or Modify Bail Conditions
After an accused person is granted bail in Calgary, they are typically subject to several conditions—such as curfews, no-contact orders, or residence restrictions. If these conditions are too restrictive or negatively impact employment, family life, or access to legal counsel, the defence may:
- Apply to vary conditions such as reporting frequency or living arrangements
- Request the removal of surety requirements, especially if the surety is no longer available
- Challenge bail conditions that were improperly imposed or are no longer justified
These motions are a key part of a Calgary criminal lawyer’s pre-trial strategy, especially in lengthy cases.
Filed When Initial Bail Terms Are Too Restrictive or Circumstances Change
Bail variation applications are typically filed when:
- The accused’s personal or financial situation changes
- There are new developments in the case, such as reduced charges or disclosure that weakens the Crown’s position
- The original conditions are interfering with work, education, or family obligations
- The accused has complied with all prior conditions, demonstrating they are not a flight risk or public threat
In these situations, the defence can argue that the bail plan should be updated to reflect proportionality and fairness under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Importance of Filing in the Appropriate Calgary Court (Provincial vs. King’s Bench)
The correct court for a bail review motion depends on where the original bail decision was made:
- If the original bail hearing occurred in Calgary Provincial Court, the variation application is usually filed there
- If the accused was denied bail in Provincial Court, a bail review must be brought before a justice of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta
Filing in the wrong court can result in procedural delays or rejection of the application. An experienced Calgary criminal lawyer will ensure proper filing, timely service on the Crown, and a persuasive affidavit outlining why the variation is warranted.