CALL ME (24/7) 250.320.9258
The client was initially charged with approximately 45 firearm offences, including possession of stolen firearms, after the police executed a search warrant at the client’s home.  At the preliminary inquiry Mr. van der Walle successfully argued that the client should not be committed to stand trial on the most serious of the charges.  As a result, the client went ahead to trial on about a dozen remaining charges alleging various firearm offences.  After a lengthy voir dire (a trial within a trial to determine the admissibility of evidence) the trial judge agreed with Mr. van der Walle that his client’s rights had been violated in many ways during the execution of the search warrant.  As a result, the judge ruled that all of the evidence found during the search was inadmissible in the trial because of the constitutional violations committed by the police.  The client was acquitted of all charges and did not have to testify.  In the end, the Crown had charged Mr. van der Walle’s client with over 40 charges and were not able to get a conviction on even a single count.  Copies of the trial judge’s rulings can be viewed here: and here:


Related Stories

The Queen v. W. (L.) 2017

The Queen v. W. (L.) 2017 Client was charged with sexual assault after a woman reported to police that she had awoken to her mother's ex boyfriend on top of her in bed.  The woman's story changed many times in the next month as the police interviewed her again for...

read more

The Queen v. A. (M.) 2017

The Queen v. A. (M.) 2017 A motor vehicle accident occurred in the early morning hours on a ski resort mountain road.  The client was driving a vehicle that rear ended another vehicle at a stop light.  Thankfully the woman and sole occupant of the vehicle that was...

read more


Fill out the form below to receive a free and confidential initial consultation.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.