If you’re in trouble, we can help.

If you are facing criminal charges, you need a legal team to review your case as soon as possible. A criminal conviction can carry serious penalties including expensive fines and jail time. Not to mention the significant long-term financial, employment, and immigration implications.

We are proud to be recognized as one of Alberta’s top Google-rated criminal defence teams and are the 8 time recipients of Three Best Rated’s top criminal defence lawyers in Calgary.

Our work in high-profile cases has earned us extensive media coverage on CTV, CBC, the Calgary Herald, and Yahoo News, affirming our reputation as a trusted advocate for clients. Leveraging our extensive network of lawyers and decades of experience, we craft defence strategies to help those accused of a crime beat the charge.

Located in Calgary, we serve clients throughout Alberta. Our vast experience and proven track record of success have equipped us to protect your rights and achieve the best outcome for your criminal case.

If you are seeking criminal trial lawyers to provide a vigorous defence, contact our team at Strategic Criminal Defence today by calling (403) 719-6410.

Call Now Or Send A Message To Get Help.

We Are Available 24/7

403-719-6410

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

An Experienced Criminal Defence Firm

Strategic Criminal Defence was founded by respected senior criminal lawyer Michael Oykhman. For over 15 years, Michael has defended thousands of clients and appeared at all levels of court in Alberta, including the Supreme Court of Canada.

Our lawyers are guided by core values of service, results, integrity, teamwork, drive, and strategy. We share our collective experience, resources, and passion to help people and look for opportunities to add value to our clients through strategic thinking and creative solutions.

Our firm, and our experienced team of 15+ criminal defence lawyers, have defended clients in over 10,000 criminal cases and collectively have over 75 years of criminal defence experience.

Practice Areas

Immediate Roadside Sanction

An Immediate Roadside Sanction (IRS) is a sanction imposed by a peace officer if a driver’s blood alcohol concentration is over the legal limit.

Domestic Violence

A charge is considered domestic in nature if it involves violence against a family member or a current/former romantic partner.

Violent Offences

Violent offences result from alleged harmful events between people. These include assault, homicide, and sexual offences.

Drug Offences

Drug charges are offences which arise from an interaction with an illicit drug or substance including possession, trafficking, distribution, and importation.

Youth Offences

Youth offences are primarily addressed through the Youth Criminal Justice Act which aims to rehabilitate young people and reduce youth crime.

Administration of Justice

Administration of justice offences include Criminal Code violations of failure to comply with conditions, prisoner unlawfully at large, failure to appear, and breach of probation.

Criminal Driving

Criminal driving encompasses multiple motor vehicle offences in the Criminal Code and is different from charges under the Traffic Safety Act of Alberta.

Assault & Threats

Assault is a charge whereby someone applies force (directly or indirectly) to a person without their consent.

Sexual Offences

Sexual offences include sexual interference, exploitation, and most commonly sexual assault.

Property Crimes

Crimes against property are serious charges in Canada. This includes theft, break and enters and vehicle fraud.

Traffic Crimes

Traffic offences and violations are breaches of provincial legislation that can result in significant fines, driving suspensions or jail time.

Pardons, Record Suspension

A record suspension allows people who have proven themselves to be law-abiding citizens for a prescribed number of years, to have their criminal records kept separate and apart from other criminal records.

Successful Cases

Case Number: 55542513

Our client faced an Immediate Roadside Sanction (IRS: Fail) for allegedly operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol. The incident occurred after police responded to a complaint about a driver found unconscious behind the wheel of a parked vehicle. Despite allegations of impairment, we identified procedural deficiencies in how the investigation and sanctions were conducted.

Law enforcement claimed that our client exhibited classic signs of impairment, including the smell of alcohol, slurred speech, and unsteady movement. The client was arrested, read their Charter rights, and placed in the back of a police vehicle. However, the investigating officer failed to provide written documentation or a clear explanation of the client’s rights to a voluntary roadside appeal. The roadside appeal was allegedly offered verbally, but no detailed information was provided about its purpose, voluntary nature, or potential impact. Instead, the client was handed documentation only after being transported home, long after the opportunity to elect a roadside appeal had passed.

At the review hearing, Michael Oykhman (Counsel) and M. Gill (Co-Counsel) demonstrated that the investigating officer’s actions violated procedural safeguards outlined in Section 88.11 of the Traffic Safety Act. Drawing on precedents such as Lausen v. Alberta (Director of SafeRoads) and Lawrence v. Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), they argued that the officer’s failure to provide timely written advice undermined our client’s ability to make an informed decision. The adjudicator agreed, finding that the lack of proper communication and documentation rendered the process unfair and procedurally flawed.

Successful Result: IRS Fail Cancelled, No Suspension.

Case Number: 9255461

Our client faced an Immediate Roadside Sanction (IRS: Fail) for allegedly operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs. The sanction was issued following a complaint about the client being found unconscious in a vehicle that had backed into another car. Despite allegations of impairment and a subsequent drug recognition evaluation (DRE), we successfully demonstrated that critical procedural errors invalidated the sanction.

The investigation began with the client being arrested for impaired driving and hit-and-run. While the officer conducted various assessments, including an ASD test that returned a reading of “0” for alcohol and a DRE evaluation, the client was not provided a Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) or any written advice about their right to a voluntary roadside appeal until after the tests were completed. This failure to issue the NAP at the appropriate time directly violated the procedural requirements outlined in the Traffic Safety Act and relevant case law, including Lausen v. Alberta (Director of SafeRoads) and Lawrence v. Alberta (Director of SafeRoads).

At the review hearing, Laura Bobyn (Counsel) effectively argued that the officer’s failure to issue the NAP prior to the roadside appeal deprived the client of the opportunity to make an informed decision about the voluntary appeal. The adjudicator agreed, noting that the timing and delivery of the NAP were inconsistent with legal requirements. This procedural deficiency undermined the fairness of the process, leading to the cancellation of the sanction.

Successful Result: IRS Fail Cancelled, No Suspension.

Case Number: 55342520

Our client faced an Immediate Roadside Sanction (IRS: Fail) for allegedly operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 milliliters of blood and impaired operation of a vehicle. The allegations arose after the client’s vehicle was found in a ditch near Banff National Park. Despite two separate breath tests indicating “Fail,” we identified critical deficiencies in the records provided, specifically related to the calibration of the devices used.

The investigation revealed that the approved screening devices (ASDs) used for both the initial test and the voluntary roadside appeal showed calibration dates listing a date nearly one year into the future. This glaring inconsistency raised doubts about the reliability of the devices. Although the issuing officer claimed this was a typographical error and the devices were calibrated in 2024, there was no corroborating evidence from the calibrator or records verifying the actual date. This oversight undermined the reliability of the results and the fairness of the administrative sanction.

At the review hearing, Michael Oykhman (Counsel) and M. Selders (Co-Counsel) argued that the absence of accurate calibration records violated procedural requirements under Section 2 of the SafeRoads Alberta Regulation and Section 12 of the Provincial Administrative Penalties Act. The adjudicator agreed, finding that the lack of reliable calibration information rendered the NAP invalid. The adjudicator determined that the client had established sufficient grounds to cancel the sanctions.

Successful Result: IRS Fail Cancelled, No Suspension.

Case Number: 9245473

Our client faced an Immediate Roadside Sanction (IRS: Fail) for allegedly operating a motor vehicle while impaired by cannabis. The sanction was issued following a traffic stop on Highway 1A near Cochrane, Alberta, during which the officer claimed the client displayed signs of impairment and admitted to recent cannabis consumption. Despite these allegations, we identified key flaws in the investigation and the evidence used to support the sanction.

During the stop, the officer noted the smell of burnt cannabis, observed red and bloodshot eyes, and cited the client’s admission of recent consumption. However, the client provided a breath sample on an approved screening device (ASD) that showed a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of “0.” Despite the officer identifying himself as a “senior drug recognition expert” (DRE), no further testing, such as a DRE evaluation or a standard field sobriety test (SFST), was conducted to substantiate the officer’s claims of impairment by drugs.

At the review hearing, Ian Savage (Counsel) effectively demonstrated that the officer’s observations were insufficient to establish impairment under Section 4(e)(iv) of the SafeRoads Alberta Regulation. The officer’s reliance on subjective observations, without corroborating evidence from approved drug screening or further testing, failed to meet the required standard to uphold the sanction. Additionally, the client provided a credible and detailed explanation of her cannabis use and driving behavior, which further undermined the officer’s claims.

The adjudicator concluded that the evidence did not establish impairment at the time of operation on a balance of probabilities. The Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) was therefore cancelled.

Successful Result: IRS Fail Cancelled, No Suspension.

Case Number: 55542511

Our client faced an Immediate Roadside Sanction (IRS: Fail) for allegedly operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol following a traffic collision. The peace officer issued a Notice of Administrative Penalty (NAP) and presented the client with a verbal explanation of a roadside appeal. However, no written advice about the voluntary nature of the appeal or its implications was provided before the appeal was declined.

The incident began when law enforcement stopped the client after observing them leaving the scene of a collision. The client was arrested, handcuffed, and placed in the back of a police vehicle. Despite the officer mentioning the appeal, the absence of written documentation and clear communication led the client to mistakenly believe that declining the appeal would result in worse consequences, such as criminal charges.

At the review hearing, we highlighted procedural deficiencies in the officer’s conduct. We argued that the failure to provide written advice regarding the voluntary nature of the appeal violated procedural safeguards under Section 88.11 of the Traffic Safety Act. Drawing on key precedents, including Lausen v. Alberta (Director of SafeRoads) and Lawrence v. Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), we demonstrated that these deficiencies deprived the client of their right to meaningful access to a roadside appeal.

The adjudicator agreed that the officer’s omissions rendered the process unfair. The NAP was canceled, and no suspension or further penalties were imposed.

Successful Result: IRS Fail Cancelled, No Suspension.

Case Number: 55342516

Our client faced an Immediate Roadside Sanction (IRS: Fail) for allegedly operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, following a traffic stop in Calgary, Alberta. This was a second occurrence, significantly raising the potential penalties and risks involved. Despite the breathalyzer results indicating a “Fail” after two separate tests, critical procedural deficiencies were identified in the investigation and explanation of the client’s rights.

The traffic stop arose from a complaint of impaired driving. After the initial “Fail” reading on the approved screening device (ASD), the peace officer arrested the client and referenced prior sanctions. The officer informed the client of the option for a roadside appeal but failed to provide timely written advice or documentation about its voluntary nature and purpose. The appeal form was presented in a rushed and unclear manner, leaving the client unaware of their rights or the distinction between criminal and administrative consequences.

During the review hearing, we emphasized the officer’s failure to meet procedural requirements under Section 88.11 of the Traffic Safety Act, particularly the lack of timely and adequate written advice about the roadside appeal. We argued that this oversight, combined with the client’s prior experience and heightened anxiety, resulted in significant unfairness. Relying on legal precedents such as Lausen v. Alberta (Director of SafeRoads) and Lawrence v. Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), we demonstrated that these procedural flaws denied the client meaningful access to safeguards against administrative sanctions.

The adjudicator agreed and canceled the NAP.

Successful Result: IRS Fail Cancelled, No Suspension.

Case Number: 55522327

Our client sought pre-charge legal advice when his wife accused him of abducting their son. After leaving Canada for Dubai, our client took his son with him, while leaving his wife behind in Canada. Our client was taken aback when his wife contacted the police, claiming that he had abandoned her in Calgary under dire circumstances. A police officer contacted our client, informing him of the potential child abduction charges he could be facing and requesting a statement from him.

Upon being retained, we provided our client with effective pre-charge legal advice and engaged in communication with the police officer involved to ensure no charges were laid against our client. Through a careful analysis of the circumstances, we developed a robust legal strategy focused on protecting our client’s rights and innocence. By effectively communicating our client’s position and addressing any concerns or misconceptions with the police officer, we successfully convinced them that pursuing charges would not be warranted. As a result, our client was able to avoid the potential legal consequences and move forward with their life unencumbered by criminal allegations.

Successful Result: No Charges; No Criminal Record

Case Number: 55432363

After a verbal argument between the complainant and our client turned physical, our client found himself facing criminal domestic violence assault and choking charges, as well as an Emergency Protection Order. Once retained, we conducted a thorough consultation to understand his situation and the circumstances surrounding the charges. Our client’s top priority was to re-establish contact with his girlfriend and to have the charges resolved without a criminal record.

Upon being retained, our first step was to immediately request the client’s disclosure, gathering all relevant information about the case. During the first court appearance, we successfully advocated for changes to our client’s release conditions, specifically securing permission for electronic communication with the complainant. Shortly afterward, our client informed us that he had reconciled with the complainant, and they were planning to get married in the coming months. However, due to the severity of the choking assault charge, the Crown was initially unwilling to delete the conditions and was still pursuing a criminal conviction against our client. We emphasized both the client’s and the complainant’s wishes to the Crown, highlighting their desire to resolve this matter and demonstrating that securing a conviction was unlikely given the circumstances. Ultimately, we successfully negotiated a peace bond for our client, which resulted in no criminal conviction for him.

Successful Result: No Criminal Record, Charges Withdrawn, Peace Bond.

Case Number: 55422346

Our client was accused of criminal harassment following a breakup with his girlfriend of nearly four years. Initially, the police contacted our client to issue a warning, instructing him not to contact his ex-girlfriend. However, despite this warning, our client left a voicemail for his ex-girlfriend, leading to criminal harassment charges being filed against him.

Upon being retained, we promptly obtained the disclosure and conducted a comprehensive review of the evidence. This allowed us to develop a strategic approach aimed at resolving our client’s case without a criminal record. Our strategy focused on emphasizing several key points to the Crown prosecutor. Firstly, we highlighted that our client had no prior criminal record, emphasizing his positive contributions to society through his educational pursuits and involvement in extracurricular activities. Additionally, we presented evidence showcasing our client’s efforts to disengage from the complainant since the date of the offense.

As a result of our discussions and presentation of these factors, we were able to resolve our client’s matter through a peace bond enabling our client to avoid a criminal record and move forward with his life.

Successful Result: Peace Bond; Charges Withdrawn; No Criminal Record

Case Number: 75700215

Our client was charged with historic sexual and physical abuse against his daughter, who disclosed the allegations 10 years after-the-fact. Our client denied the allegations entirely. He hired Elena Ryland to represent him.

Upon opening the file, Elena Ryland recognized that the allegations arose in the context of a tumultuous divorce and worked closely with the client to gather and review documentation supporting the tumultuous nature of relationship between our client and the Complainant’s mother, who had remained an active influence in the Complainant’s life. At trial before a jury, Elena Ryland cross-examined the Complainant, the Complainant’s sister, and the Complainant’s mother to reveal inconsistencies between their description of the time period underlying the allegations. Elena Ryland, with the assistance of Mateya Selders, was able to reveal numerous issues with the credibility of the witnesses and the reliability of their testimonies. As a result, all 12 members of the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on each count, and our client was acquitted of all charges.

Successful result: Acquitted at trial

Case Number: 75710266

Our client was charged with voyeurism for allegedly placing a video camera in a unisex bathroom located at a private institution. He denied that he was the individual who had placed the video camera in the bathroom. He hired Elena Ryland to represent him.

In reviewing the disclosure, it became apparent that the only evidence connecting our client to the video camera was a mixed DNA sample that included our client’s DNA (among other DNA contributors), and one witness who had observed our client enter the bathroom after the video camera had been discovered and removed. The matter was set for trial. At trial, Elena Ryland, with the assistance of Manvir Gill, relied on scientific studies exposing the limitations of DNA evidence due to DNA transfer to cross-examine the Crown prosecutor’s DNA evidence. Through this cross-examination, it was revealed that our client’s DNA could have been transferred to the video camera unknowingly. As a result, the Court determined that there was a reasonable doubt that our client was responsible for placing the video camera in the bathroom, and acquitted him.

Successful result: Acquitted at trial

Case Number: 75700182

Our client was charged with violently confining a woman in her apartment and sexually assaulting her.

Elena Ryland and her second chair, Laura Bobyn, provided a vigorous defence of the client in a weeklong jury trial in Lethbridge, Alberta. In preparation for trial, they identified numerous inconsistencies between the complainant’s multiple statements, as well as inconsistencies between the medical records and the complainant’s description of the assault. During trial, these inconsistencies were exposed through thorough cross-examination of the complainant. Counsel also utilized the evidence of the Crown prosecutor’s other witnesses to expose additional frailties in the Crown prosecutor’s case. Our client testified that the sexual contact between him and the complainant was consensual, and there was no violence or confinement of the complainant. All 12 jury members returned a quick verdict of not guilty on both counts. As a result, our client was acquitted on both charges.

Successful result: Acquitted at trial

VIEW ALL SUCCESSFUL CASES

Our Lawyers In The News

Radio personality granted absolute discharge

Former junior hockey player jailed for sexual assault of Calgary woman

Calgary businessman John Torode pleads guilty to drunk-driving crash that injured 2 women

Woman accused of Calgary manslaughter tearfully hugs lawyer after charge dropped mid-trial

Murder charge dropped in Manchester industrial area fatal stabbing of Valeri Lomakine

Alberta Court of Appeal hears arguments on ‘unfit’ sentence handed to former Calgary cop

Bail granted to two men charged with beating wheelchair-bound man during home invasion

Triple homicides and 2002 Valentine’s Day killing among top Calgary court cases to watch in 2021

Woman beaten to death by boyfriend for sitting on his hat

Why Choose Us?

Our firm has over 500+ five-star Google reviews across Canada.

We are one of the largest criminal defence teams in Western Canada.

Our lawyers have over 60 years of combined legal experience.

We have defended clients in over 10,000 criminal cases.

We offer flexible payment structures and fee plans.

Our team is available 24/7 to provide help and support.

Meet Your Calgary Legal Team

Our Calgary office has 15 dedicated lawyers who are passionate about criminal defence work and ensuring a just outcome for each of their clients.

Michael Oykhman

ian-savage

Ian Savage

greg

Greg Janzen

Elena Ryland

Joseph-Small-Lawyer copy

Joseph Beller

Cara Lebenzon

Andrew-stewart

Andrew Stewart

shervin

Shervin Sabet

lauren

Laura Bobyn

Spencer Sikora

manvir-gill

Manvir Gill

Mateya Selders

Client Reviews

Fantastic defence team! Mateya Selders was puntual at every instance. She skillfully guided me through my case from its dreadful start to successful finish. Combined with her legal know-how, experienced team, and exceptional service; she has made an otherwise tragic turn of events into a memorable hinderence.

5 stars can’t even come close to convey my gratitude. Thank you Mateya and the Strategic Criminal Defence team!

G.C.

I wanted to thank Michael and his team for being outstanding and providing the best customer service. Thank you for winning my case. I really appreciate it. We all make mistakes and learn from them. Thank you again Michael. Highly recommended! Best lawyer in Alberta and Calgary!!

E.G.

I can’t thank enough to Joseph Beller. I got into a funny situation charged by CPS. This is a horrible place to be in, anyone who needs help should reach out ASAP.

He was very professional, calm, made the case go very smooth, good communication, answered my questions. Reliable! He cares about his clients, I trusted him 100%.

Charges have been withdrawn within a few months. 100% recommend him and his team to anyone in need! I wish more lawyers would be like him!

C.R.

Had my first criminal offence and unfortunately ended up with assault charges after drinking too much. Greg took the time to review the evidence and noted that there was actually no assault on one of the allegations! He was so patient with me and dealt with my fear and anxiety amazingly, answering my million questions all hours of the day. It took forever, due to delay from prosecution, but I ended up with a resolution of a peace bond that was acceptable while also allowing me to deal with the consequences of my actions. I hope to never be in a position to see Greg again, however, I highly recommend him and his team for these tough situations!

M.E.
I recently found myself assisting my elderly father with an urgent legal situation while from out of province. Attorney Greg Janzen went above and beyond from A-Z. He walked us through every step seamlessly. Resulting in a better than expected outcome. You can count on Greg Janzen!

R.E.
READ OUR REVIEWS
GET A FREE CONSULTATION

Frequently Asked Questions

Consultations are typically free, however, if your case is increasingly sophisticated and you require immediate advice, a fee may be warranted. For example, if you need assistance with an impending arrest or an ongoing interrogation, a proper retainer may need to be completed. Regardless, most consultations will not require a fee and we will ensure we provide as much help and information as we can prior to discussing the necessity of one.

Our consultation will consist of:

  • A review of relevant documents, such as those provided to you by the police;
  • A discussion about the incident(s) in question;
  • An explanation of court processes; and
  • An assessment of the possible outcomes that could result in your case.

At Strategic Criminal Defence in Calgary, our lawyers are dedicated to providing you with strategic advice during your consultation so that you can make an informed decision going forward.

Yes! Strategic Criminal Defence focuses exclusively on criminal defence and our lawyers have extensive knowledge and experience in criminal law. We believe this will be of substantial benefit to you as you can trust that we have the expertise to help resolve your case.

Our lawyers in Calgary have rich backgrounds in criminal justice, ranging from presiding over the Criminal Defence Lawyer’s Association (Calgary), conducting numerous trials at the Court of Queen’s Bench in Alberta, and working at the Provincial Court of Alberta. We have dedicated our careers to the practice of criminal defence and know that we can bring the level of zealous advocacy you need to assist you with your criminal charge.

A number of factors may affect the length of time it takes to resolve your case, namely, the complexity of your case and your priorities. For example, if you are willing to plead guilty without hesitation, your file may be resolved relatively quickly. On the other hand, if you do not want to plead guilty and would like to proceed to trial, your file may require more time and resources to be resolved.

As a general rule of thumb, cases that go to trial take longer to conclude. Similarly, if you have a complex file which requires a large amount of disclosure and several witnesses, there may be delays in resolving your case as it will take longer to prepare and organize the required materials.

It is important to convey any concerns you may have about the speed with which your case is resolved to your lawyer so that the course of action which is preferable to you is undertaken. However, in some situations, a more calculated approach may need to be taken irrespective of your personal objectives. For example, it might be sensible to adjourn a trial date or a hearing to demonstrate that reasonable steps are being taken towards rehabilitation. The benefit of this is that the judge may be persuaded to decide more favourably to you, on account of evidence of your progress. On the other hand, it could be useful to accelerate the court process if the Crown Prosecutor has made an oversight that is advantageous to your file.

At Strategic Criminal Defence in Calgary, our philosophy is to provide the highest level of quality service to our clients, not to finish as quickly as possible. Our defence lawyers take great care to review client’s files, consider client’s needs and strategize the most effective way to handle a case.

The cost of our services depends upon the experience of the lawyer you retain and how complex your file is. For example, the rates for a senior partner may differ from that of an entry-level associate.

Our team of lawyers in Calgary use a flat-rate system, so you will know, upfront, the total cost of whichever service you require from us. The flat-rate system provides the costs for each stage of the court process, regardless of how long it takes us to fulfill the required service or the number of queries you make.

Retaining a criminal defence lawyer may be a consequential decision that affects your future. This is why it is important to invest in the right firm and the right lawyer for you. Contact our office in Calgary for a free consultation and for more information about fees and payment structures.

You have a constitutionally protected right to silence if and when you are arrested or detained by police. This means that you do not need to give a statement, despite any recommendations suggesting otherwise. In other words, you are under no obligation to make a statement which may be self-incriminating.

Anything that you say to the police can be used to convict you in a court of law if you are charged with an offence (i.e., there is no such thing as saying something “off the record”). This is why it is critical that you seek out legal advice and representation before becoming involved with law enforcement or a criminal investigation.

Typically, a police officer will indicate that you have the option to speak with a lawyer if they require a statement from you. If you are given this opportunity, it is likely in your interest to contact a lawyer who can explain whether you should give a statement. In the context of a criminal charge or a criminal offence, a criminal defence lawyer will be able to assist you in examining the potential risks involved in you giving a statement.

If I don’t provide a statement, will I look guilty?

Given that your right to silence is protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, you will not look guilty if you choose not to provide a statement to the police. Having this right means that the absence of a statement from you cannot lead to an inference about your blameworthiness.

In a court of law, the fact that you refuse to give a statement cannot be used as an argument against you. In fact, you may be able to preserve your innocence better if you choose not to give a statement to the police because, in remaining silent, you avoid the risk of accidentally divulging information that is unavailable to the Crown, and which can implicate you in a crime.

If the police have asked you to make a statement or if you are under the impression that you may be a suspect in a criminal case, contact us immediately. We can help you navigate this likely overwhelming process, inform you of your rights and responsibilities in communicating with the police and assist you in resolving any criminal charges that there may be against you.

When you hire a criminal defence lawyer, it is important that you hire the best. Whether you are found guilty or receive a charge that will show up on your criminal record, a criminal record can have serious consequences that can affect your future employment, ability to travel, personal freedoms and your overall wellbeing.

At Strategic Criminal Defence in Calgary, our team of lawyers have over 60 years of criminal defence experience combined. We are passionate about advocating for our clients and ensuring the best possible outcome. We understand how stressful these situations can be and are fully committed to ensuring you feel supported, understood, and advocated for from start to finish. Specifically, we prioritize ensuring that a charge will not appear on your criminal record and ensuring that if you do receive a sentence, it is fair and reasonable in considering not only your current situation but your future as well.

To hire one of our lawyers, you can schedule a free consultation. This will give you the opportunity to determine whether we are the right fit at no expense to you.

We have successfully defended a range of criminal offences including but not limited to:

  • Impaired Driving (Immediate Roadside Sanctions, Criminal Driving Charges, etc)
  • Domestic Violence
  • Drug Offences (Possession, Trafficking and Distribution, Importation, Manufacturing etc.)
  • Violent Offences (Assault, Aggravated Assault, Sexual Assault etc.)
  • Youth Offences
  • Administration of Justice (Failure to Comply with Conditions, Escape or Help Escape from Custody, Prisoner Unlawfully at Large, Failure to Appear,
  • Breach of Probation etc.)
  • Criminal Driving
  • Assault and Threats
  • Sexual Offences (Sexual Interference, Sexual Exploitation, Sexual Assault etc.)
  • Property Crimes (Breaking and Entering, Being Unlawfully in a Dwelling, Mischief, Theft, Robbery, Trespassing at Night, Forcible Entry etc.)
  • Traffic Crimes and Traffic Violations
  • Pardons and Record Suspension

To learn more about cases we have successfully defended, visit our Successful Cases page.

Our firm defends clients across Alberta from our two central offices located in Calgary and Edmonton.

To access our services in Calgary and southern Alberta, you can visit our office located at:

396 11 Ave SW #840
Calgary, AB T2R 0C5

You can also give our Calgary office a call at (403) 630-8835.

To access our services in Edmonton and northern Alberta, you can visit our office located at:

9707 110 St NW #410
Edmonton, AB T5K 2L9

You can also give our Edmonton office a call at (587) 930-7877.

VIEW MORE FAQ