Vancouver's Best Criminal & Driving Lawyers

EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL & DRIVING LAWYERS

EXCEPTIONAL RESULTS

CRIMINAL LAW

Filkow Law is a highly respected criminal law firm with 50 years of collective experience achieving exceptional results.

Sexual Offences

Criminal Driving

Drug & Money Offences

Assault Offences

Driving Law

Filkow Law is a leading and highly successful driving law firm with 50 years of collective expertise delivering outstanding results.

Driving While Prohibited

Licence Prohibitions

ICBC Breaches & Car Accidents

Immediate Roadside Prohibitions

TOP LEGAL COUNSEL

Filkow Law is a highly respected and well-established law firm. Its lawyers are recognized for achieving outstanding results in criminal and driving cases. Clients benefit from the lawyers’ breadth of legal expertise, their extensive connections within the legal system and the collective resources of the firm.

Client Testimonials

"I can’t thank you enough for the news Kevin delivered to me this am. Obviously I couldn’t be more pleased. “you decidedly removed the noose from the hang man’s grip that was hovering above my head for these many months. I have never felt more powerless, as well as shameful. You were both wonderful to work with. What a team! Gracious and powerful at the same time. Thank you also on behalf of my husband."

- R.D.

"Mr K Filkow is in law business since I was teenager and at 45+ yrs old I would pick him over any other criminal lawyer cause he has never let me or any of my family or friends down in 25+ years we have been closely working with his firm only as everyone knows we had very big circle of friends and he always managed to get us through our hard times on way or the other. Thank you kindly Mr Filkow for keeping us safe with your professional services."

- K.D.

I could not recommend the lawyers at Filkow Law enough! The entire team is highly professional and knowledgeable. They answered all of my questions honestly and were always quick to respond. I always knew what to expect. They were upfront and honest about their fees and they stuck to their word. As with anything, there are no guarantees, but I felt as though they worked hard for me and did everything they could to get me the best possible result. I am very satisfied with the service that I received and would not hesitate to refer my friends and family to Filkow Law for assistance.

- A.B.

Kevin and his team were amazing. They answered all my questions and made sure I knew what was happening at all times. They checked up on the kids and I and just made sure I was alright at least every month or so. In the beginning I was so nervous but after speaking with Kevin and his team, they made me feel so comfortable I just knew I was going to be taken care of. If you ever want the best go to filkow law, you won’t be disappointed...

- J.B.

I am so grateful for the effort, care, and support from the Filkow Law team. Everything I left in their hands was taken care of quickly and efficiently. Not only are they fantastic at what they do, they truly care about their clients. I cannot thank their team enough for their endless efforts, always keeping me updated, and answering all my questions thoroughly without any hesitation. I am very pleased with my outcome and the service I received. My case resolved with 100% success. Thank you Filkow Law.

- B.Y.

Where do I start FILKOW law group is unstoppable over the many years I called him he pulled right threw for me and my family I highly recommend him I promise you he will do the same for you and your family God bless him and his law firm.

- J.S.

You are a wise and seasoned professional, Kevin. I feel fortunate to have been connected with you. You know your stuff. I thank you for your excellent work and professionalism. I recommend you most highly.

- B.M.

Merry Christmas And Happy New Year Kevin, when I reflect on the last year I can't help but be reminded of the kindness and generosity you have shown to me and my family and the New start you have given to my son. It has been an absolute pleasure knowing you and knowing there are still good people in this world. Thank you again and again for helping my young man back on the path of doing what he was raised to be, not be a follower.

- D.H.

My case just finished and I wanted to thank Mr. Filkow I don't want to detail the circumstances of my case because they still make me very upset. But there were serious allegations against me which have recently been dismissed meaning the case has been dropped. Mr. Filkow was an excellent lawyer from beginning to end - he is very smart and his instincts are great. He also has a very good team - Mike and Anna were very helpful along the way and were very patient with me. So I do want to thank Mr. Filkow and his team for taking care of me and my family - it meant the world to us.

- L.P.

Amazing service with even better results. Filkow law handheld my driving case without flaw. If you get pulled over... call Filkow. One meeting and everything was taken care of for me. All I had to do was answer my phone to receive the good news. Saved me thousands of dollars and lots more. True professionals. 6 stars not 5.

- K.P.

From my first phone call with Kevin Filkow, to meeting Anthony Robinson, to calls with Anthony's assistant... Amazing! I could not have gone through the past 2 years without them. Anthony is professional and thorough making sure I was okay every step of the way. I can't thank Anthony enough for his hard work, understanding my needs and making sure I wasn't stressed unnecessarily. Thank you so much!!

- C.N.

Thank you to Mr. Kevin Filkow, Ms. Paula Cooper and Filkow law team. This was very stressful time for my family and I. We went to many law offices and we decided on Mr. Kevin Filkow as our lawyer. His plan of action and predilection for case made the decision as our lawyer. Anytime we arrived at the office he made my family and I comfortable. His work ethics, engagement and performance got me through this difficult time. Again I thank you.

- M.V.

- J.S.

When I first realized that I would be needing a lawyer to deal with my case I knew I couldn’t just trust anyone with my future, I had to find the best of the best, the top elite lawyer to take control and guide the case to the direction of victory. Ermina at Filkow Law Group was absolutely outstanding in every way, very responsive to emails and phone calls, she would answer any and all questions/concerns I had - making me feel heard, respected, and explained all the details. She worked very hard on getting my case solved to the point of no criminal record thus changing my future and life in the most positive way. Thank you to Ermina and Filkow Law they truly care and know how to get the job done, period. If you want to feel safe and secure in your case, there is no one else but Filkow to make that happen. Thanks again to Ermina, such a blessing.

- R.B.

Kevin and his team have been exceptional in their ability to help me over the years. They have shown tremendous work ethic and truly aspire to go above and beyond! Thank you Filkow Law for everything!

- R.J.

Honestly these guys worked so hard for me and I’m truly grateful for everything they have done. Really friendly firm and look out for your best interest. Kevin and Anthony are top notch!. I would recommend filkow law to anyone who is in search of the best.

- J.W.

Call Now

604-558-8778

Toll-Free Number

1-855-558-8778

Text us your police, court or driving documents here:

Recent Blogs

Jun 19, 2021

Do You Have the Capacity to Consent After Consuming Alcohol?

What role does alcohol play in assessing consent? The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) recently explored this issue in R v GF.

In R v GF, 2021 SCC 20, the SCC considered the relationship between consent and the capacity to consent to sexual activity. Ultimately, the SCC ruled that the capacity to consent to sexual activity and actual consent do not need to be compartmentalized. Capacity is simply a precondition of consent.

The Facts in R v GF

The accused couple (G.F. and R.B.) was found guilty of sexually assaulting C.R. while on a camping trip. On the final night, C.R.’s mother arranged to have C.R. sleep in the accused couple’s trailer. That night that the two accused and C.R. engaged in sexual activity.

All parties agreed that the sexual activity happened. However, they disagreed on whether C.R. consented to it. C.R. said she drank around 8 to 10 shots and did not consent. G.F. said C.R. had a beer and two half-ounce shots and did consent.

The trial judge believed C.R. and disbelieved G.F. He found that the sexual activity occurred while she was too drunk to consent and that she did not consent.

The Court of Appeal’s Response

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial because the trial judge erred on two grounds:

He did not explain why he found C.R. was too drunk to give consent; and
He should have considered the issue of consent separately from the issue of capacity.

In his decision, the trial judge concluded:

[72] Section 273.1(2)(b) of the Criminal Code indicates that no consent is obtained where the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity. This applies in instances where a complainant is intoxicated.

[73] Accordingly, I find the two accused guilty of sexual assault as charged.

Because the trial judge did not assess at what point C.R. would have been too drunk to give consent, the Court of Appeal found he misleadingly suggested that any level of intoxication is enough to negate consent.

The Court of Appeal also held that the consent and capacity analysis should be separate. Thus, the trial judge should have first asked whether C.R. consented to the sexual activity, then asked whether her level of intoxication invalidated the consent.

The Supreme Court of Canada Finds Capacity is a Precondition to Consent

Karakatsanis J., for the majority of the SCC, overturned the Court of Appeal and reinstated the convictions. While the Court of Appeal looked at alcohol and incapacity as factors that render consent ineffective, the SCC rejected the idea that a person can consent but have his or her consent be ineffective due to alcohol or incapacity. As a matter of logic, a person must be capable of consenting to provide consent.

The SCC outlined a four-part test for when a person is capable of consent. The person must be capable of understanding all of the following:

the physical act;
the sexual nature of the act;
the identity of the sexual partner(s); and
that he or she may refuse to participate.

If the Crown proves the person was incapable of understanding any one of the above beyond a reasonable doubt, the complainant is incapable of consent, and therefore did not consent.

On the issue of the trial judge’s reasons, the SCC reiterated that an appellate court only needs to understand the factual basis for the decision. Poorly expressed reasons did not give rise to an appeal. In this case, while it would have been preferable for the trial judge to clearly identify what aspect of consent he was referring to, his failure to do so was not an error.

What Does This Mean For Sexual Assault Law in Canada?

The R v GF ruling has two implications for sexual assault law in Canada. First, consent and capacity are essentially one concept, where capacity is a precondition to consent. Second, a trial judge does not need to give descriptive reasons about consent and capacity as long as the factual basis for the decision is clear from the record.

Read Now

May 05, 2021

Can the Police Unlock Your Phone?

A question that comes up more and more in recent years is, can the police unlock your phone if you’re under arrest? The development of technology, in particular the ubiquitous presence of smartphones, creates issues not previously dealt with by the courts and legal scholars. Requiring someone to provide passwords to the police is one such example of a novel legal problem. The Ontario Court of Justice in R v Shergill recently answered whether the court, through an assistance order under section 487.02 of the Criminal Code, can lawfully require an arrested individual to unlock encrypted data to aid an investigation.

Are Police Allowed to Access Your Data?

Police can and will confiscate your phone if you are arrested. If a person’s device is unlocked upon arrest, the police may in some circumstances lawfully retrieve stored data. However, when the device is locked, the police may not be able to access any information. Lawful seizure of the device alone—without access to stored data—provides little to no investigative value. In limited circumstances, an assistance order may force an individual to participate in the police search so that the investigation is more meaningful. According to Shergill, this power does not extend to an accused person.

This is largely because the data is not accessible without participation of the accused. Trying to obtain encrypted information any other way would expend too many resources or may even destroy the seized device. Although the password itself may not be used as evidence against someone, the inculpatory effect of providing encryption keys in and of itself makes password compulsion unconstitutional. An assistance order against an accused violates the person’s rights including the presumption of innocence, right to silence and right against self-incrimination.

Individual Rights vs Public Interest

The court in Shergill also distinguished password compulsion from other forms of orders related to the creation of physical evidence (e.g., DNA and breath samples). Physical evidence can be obtained through other means. An encryption key, however, requires communicating a thought in the person’s head. The key cannot be revealed unless the person utters the characters. In Canada, the protection of freedom of speech extends to encryption keys, even when it may or may not contain information vital to police investigation. Balancing the public interest in prosecution against an accused’s liberty interests, Shergill sided with protecting individual rights.

This decision has not been appealed or otherwise challenged by other jurisdictions. With emerging technological advancements, the Canadian courts have made it clear that while the police may acquire search warrants against individuals and seize items, access to information within the seized devices are not automatic.

For more information on search of password-protected devices, or to obtain effective legal representation in unlawful search and seizure, contact us at Filkow Law – 604-558-8778. If you find yourself in need of a criminal defence lawyer, call immediately.

Read Now

Jan 09, 2021

What Happens If You Breach Bail Conditions?

Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a landmark decision relating to the imposition of conditions on release (i.e., bail conditions) and breaches of those conditions.

Generally, to be convicted and found guilty of a criminal offence a person must commit a wrongful act – the actus reus – and must have the requisite guilty mind to commit that wrongful act – the mens rea. However, the law recognizes that there are two types of mens rea – subjective and objective.

Subjective mens rea is where a person is responsible for committing the crime if they intended, knew, or were aware of what might happen because of their wrongful act.

Objective mens rea is where a person did not mean to do anything wrong but is nevertheless responsible for committing the wrongful act. In other words, objective mens rea looks at what an ordinary or reasonable member of society would have done in the same situation.

Prior to the decision in Zora, courts throughout Canada disagreed on the mens rea to apply to breaches of bail conditions. However, in Zora, the SCC confirmed that the mens rea to be applied for breaching a bail condition was subjective. This means that the Court, in deciding the guilt or innocence of the accused person alleged to have breached a bail condition, must look at what that person actually knew or was aware might happen as a result of committing the breach.

In addition to resolving the issue of objective versus subjective mens rea for breaches of bail conditions, the Supreme Court took the opportunity to revisit the purpose and imposition of bail conditions. For decades prosecutors would seek, and Judges would consider and often impose many conditions to an accused’s person release or bail. The Supreme Court of Canada in Zora found this was the wrong practice and has transformed this unjust tradition. Rather, The Supreme Court found that normally there should not be any conditions imposed on bail. There are many reasons for this including an accused’s presumption of innocence, unnecessary restrictions on a person’s liberty and the impact of pre-trial conditions on vulnerable populations. In other words, the default form of bail for most crimes is release on an undertaking. Additional bail conditions can only be imposed if they are clearly articulated, minimal in number, necessary, reasonable, the least onerous in the circumstances, and linked to the risks regarding the grounds for detention under section 515 of the Criminal Code. These include securing the accused ‘s attendance in court, ensuring the protection or safety of the public and maintaining confidence in the administration of justice.

The Zora case has changed things. Bail conditions including no contact, no go, reporting, no alcohol, curfew and any other conditions must be justified and necessary.