Although it was a little more than 2 years ago, Jeremy Jensen and Jay Michi recall the landmark decision in R. v. Anthony-Cook like it was yesterday.
"Very few lawyers even get to appear at the Supreme Court of Canada, much less walk away with a win" states Jeremy Jensen, who argued the landmark decision alongside his long-time friend Micah Rankin. "The fact that the case had wide-reaching implications for lawyers and judges across Canada made the victory even more sweet" says Jensen.
Jay Michi also recalls the win and the events that led to the argument's genesis. "More than a few lawyers have been made to listen to the story about how this idea began following one of my joint submissions going sideways, and that we needed clearer guidance from the court on joint submissions" says Michi. "I still like to take a very small piece of credit, even if I didn't make it to Ottawa" Michi jokes.
But Jensen points to the Anthony-Cook decision as the result of the collaborative approach employed by the firm. "Every lawyer and every legal assistant played a big part in ensuring that we achieved our goal on that file. It is still one of our proudest moments."
Jeremy Jensen and Marshall Putnam fought tooth and nail to ensure the best possible outcome for their client, who had found himself caught up in the drug trade back in early 2016. Although the amounts of drugs in this case where substantial, and included fentanyl, Jensen and Putnam were able to get their client's sentence cut in half, by persuasivly arguing that the police tactics in this case were substandard, an argument considered "bona fide and compelling" by His Lordship, Supreme Court Justice Warren Milman.
Jeremy Jensen and his team got a client out on bail who is presently charged with second degree murder. Despite common perceptions, bail for individuals charged with murder is the rare exception rather than the norm. It takes exceptional advocacy and exceptional lawyers.
Daniel McNamee successfully defended a Kamloops Man who was charged with a Break & Enter and Theft from a home nearby his house. Daniel persuasively argued that the police failed to investigate alternative explanations for the dog track leading to his client's house, operated on tunnel vision, in order to secure an acquittal for his client.
After successfully raising the arguments of self-defence and provocation, Jay Michi addressed a jury in what was later described by onlookers as an "emotionally-charged and compelling closing statement of defence."
Jay Michi successfully defended a Kamloops Couple who were charged with assaulting an RCMP Constable. The presiding judge ultimately rejected the Constable's evidence and agreed with Mr. Michi that "sometimes when you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Jay Michi secured a much need conditional discharge for his client whose past caught up to him, but didn't get the better of him.