Austin Corbett

Direct: 587-525-6755

Email: acorbett@bottoslaw.ca

Mr. Corbett is an experienced criminal lawyer practicing exclusively for the defence.  He is licensed to practice in both Alberta, and the Northwest Territories, although he also represents clients in British Columbia, Ontario, and Saskatchewan. Throughout his career, Mr. Corbett has represented clients charged with a wide variety of Criminal offences, from minor tickets to extremely serious charges.  He has also represented a number of individuals on appeal.  These charges include Murder, Fraud, Impaired Driving, Drug Offences, Youth Charges, and in particular, Sexual Assault.

Experience

Mr. Corbett has experience with both Judge Alone and Judge and Jury trials, and has appeared in the Provincial Court of Alberta, (now titled the Alberta Court of Justice), the Court of King’s Bench (formerly the Court of Queen’s Bench), the Territorial and Supreme Courts of the Northwest Territories, the Ontario Court of Justice, the British Columbia Provincial Court, the Court of Appeal of Alberta and the Supreme Court of Canada.

He has extensive experience with the particular intricacies of jury trials, having conducted a considerable number of successful jury trial defences.  Mr. Corbett has never had a jury convict his client of sexual assault.  He specializes particularly in the defence of those accused of sexual offences, and the defence of young offenders.  He has also regularly defended members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

He is a member of specialized Legal Aid panels, including the Youth Panel, and the Major Crimes Panel.  His practice is solely focused on Criminal Law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Mr. Corbett also holds unique experience and knowledge in difficult cases involving the internet, dark web, cryptocurrency and other emerging Internet crimes.  He has represented individuals in a number of reported court decisions regarding novel legal issues particularly involving search and seizure law under s. 8 of the Charter.  A selection of reported cases by Mr. Corbett is below.

He graduated from the University of Alberta Faculty of Law. After completion of his articles at another law firm, he joined Bottos Law Group in August 2015 and has worked here ever since.

Volunteer Work

While at the University of Alberta, Mr. Corbett focused on criminal law and the law of evidence. Mr. Corbett undertook a number of additional projects centred on Criminal Law. He worked at the Youth Criminal Defence Office in 2013 and took part in the Sopinka Criminal Trial Moot in Vancouver, BC in 2014.

Mr. Corbett was active in the volunteer organization, Student Legal Services, which helps members of the community charged with criminal offences. During that time, he served as a Dayleader, helping individuals in 2012, and as the organization’s Executive Coordinator in 2013.  He now serves on the Board of Directors for that organization, and previously served on the Board of Directors for the Alberta Prison Justice Society.

Mr. Corbett co-teaches Sentencing at the University of Alberta Faculty of Law, and has taught classes in Criminal Law and Advanced Evidence.  He has also taught courses for Articling Students from the Law Society of Alberta, and advanced seminars for other criminal defence lawyers.

Awards and Memberships

Mr. Corbett received a number of awards throughout his academic career, and was honoured with the Emery Jamieson LLP Award for his volunteer work with SLS in November 2013. He was also the recipient of the Sylvester C McGoey Criminal Law Memorial Bursary for 2014.

Back in 2019 he was honoured by the Criminal Trial Lawyer’s Association as the recipient of the “Top Gunn” award for outstanding work by a criminal defence lawyer of 5 years experience or less.

Mr. Corbett is a member of the Criminal Trial Lawyers Association, the Law Society of Alberta, and the Law Society of the Northwest Territories.  He travels regularly to the Northwest Territories and maintains an active trial practice in that jurisdiction.

He is willing to speak with you anytime and is happy to meet for an initial consultation free of charge.

Select Reported Cases:

• R v Chartrand, Provincial Court of Alberta, Edmonton, 2016 (unreported)
  • The accused was charged with assault on a peace officer (s. 270 Criminal Code) arising from a physical altercation with guards at Edmonton Institution.
  • At issue in the trial was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant was a “peace officer” within the meaning of s. 2 of the Criminal Code; and whether the de minimis doctrine applied to the degree of force used by the accused.
  • The Court ruled that the Crown had failed to establish that the guards at Edmonton Institution were properly designated peace officers; the Court rejected the de minimis argument, and so the accused convicted of the lesser included offence of common assault (s. 266).
• R v Chanyi, 2016 ABPC 7
  • Client charged with obstruction of a police officer, and refusal to provide a breath sample.  Court held that the police were not entitled to arrest the Accused, as he had not committed a criminal offence, and therefore the Accused did not obstruct the police, nor was the breath demand lawful.  Client acquitted of both charges.
• R v Marek, 2016 ABQB 18
  • Austin Corbett acted as amicus curiae (friend of the court) to assist Mr. Mark Marek in his defence of his website www.bestgore.com on a charge of public obscenity, arising from an investigation into the posting of the infamous “1 Lunatic, 1 Icepick” video created by Luka Magnotta.  The case involved a number of searches, including of Mr. Marek’s laptop.  The search was challenged by the defence as being over-broad and unreasonable.
  • The Court found that the search of Mr. Marek’s devices scooped up more than a decade’s worth of personal information and was therefore over-broad and unreasonable.  In the end, the Court excluded the evidence found from the trial of this matter, significantly advancing the state of the law in Alberta on the topic of forensic computer searches.
• R v Ozorka, 2018 ABPC 162
  • In a widely cited decision, the Crown made an application for the complainant of a sexual assault allegation to testify remotely from Ontario.  The basis for the application was that the complainant felt that she was unable to travel to Alberta because of her PTSD.
  • Mr. Corbett for the defence vigorously opposed the application.  In the end, it was granted, but not without significant safeguards in place to protect the fair trial rights of the Accused.  After issues with the complainant evidence arose, including her use of material not shown on her screen, the matter resolved.
  • This decision has been repeatedly relied upon by other courts facing a similar Crown application.
• R v SL, 2018 ABQB 889
  • Pre-trial application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence regarding the other sexual activity of the complainant.
  • Evidence was allowed to impeach the complainant’s credibility and to advance a motive to fabricate.
  • The Crown stayed the charges during the trial.
• R v Beck, 2018 ABQB 900
  • Application to exclude evidence of drug trafficking found with a search warrant.
  • The Search warrant included very little actual police work, other than a confidential tip that the accused was trafficking marijuana and cocaine in the Stony Plain and Edmonton area.
  • The Court found that the warrants should not have been issued, and were therefore issued in breach of the Accused’s s. 8 Charter rights.  The Court excluded all of the evidence found as a result of the search and the Accused was acquitted.
• R v Scrivens, 2018 ABQB 1027
  • The Crown sought a Dangerous Offender order for an indeterminate sentence against the Accused.
  • At issue was whether the Dangerous Offender assessment had been completed and filed in the appropriate time as set out in the Criminal Code.  The Accused argued that the failure to complete the assessment in time rendered the proceedings a nullity.
  • In a thorough decision canvassing the law in this area, the Court found the missed dates were not overly significant and did not occasion any prejudice to the Accused.  The application was dismissed.
• R v Lay, 2019 ABCA 221.
  • The accused, while on remand, orchestrated a jailbreak from a corrections transport vehicle, during which masked associates wielded apparent firearms against officers, freeing the accused to escape in a waiting van. He was convicted of extortion (s. 346), escaping lawful custody (s. 145(1)(a)), and assault on a peace officer with a weapon (s. 270.01), and sentenced to seven years for extortion, six months consecutive for escape, and two years less a day concurrent for assault.
  • The appeal was on the extortion sentence only, on three grounds — whether the firearm finding was supported by evidence, whether parity with co-conspirators required a lower sentence, and whether the trial judge applied the wrong sentencing precedent.
  • All three grounds dismissed by the Court; and the seven-year extortion sentence was affirmed.
• R v Powell, Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Edmonton, 2019 (unreported)
  • The accused faced drug trafficking charges. A Charter voir dire was held to address the police conduct from the initial detention through to the search of his vehicle.
  • A number of Charter breaches were raised, including the lawfulness of the initial arrest for possession; whether the accused was properly advised of his jeopardy; whether the failure to re-caution on a subsequent trafficking arrest breached s. 10(b); and whether a strip search conducted as routine practice without individualized grounds violated s. 8 of the Charter.
  • A s. 10(b) breach was established upon the arrest for trafficking; a s. 8 breach was established for the strip search conducted as rote practice; subsequently the cocaine found during the strip search and the accused’s related statement were excluded; cocaine found in the accused’s vehicle was admitted into the trial proper.
  • At trial, the Court disagreed with the police expert opinion that the cocaine in the vehicle was possessed for the purpose of trafficking, and the accused was convicted of the lesser offence of simple possession of cocaine.
• R v Scrivens, 2019 ABQB 700
  • The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference of a six-year-old girl (s. 151 of the Criminal Code). He had a prior record for child sexual offences and had previously been designated a Long-Term Offender — a supervision order he had since breached. Along with the conviction for sexual interference he was simultaneously convicted of multiple breaches of a s. 810.1 recognizance and probation order.
  • The legal question was whether the accused satisfied the criteria for a Dangerous Offender designation, and if so, whether an indeterminate detention or a Long-Term Supervision Order was the more appropriate disposition.
  • After an extensive evidentiary hearing lasting several weeks, and involving the cross-examination of multiple psychologist and psychiatrists, the accused was confirmed as a Dangerous Offender, however, he avoided an inderminate sentence and was sentenced to nine years in jail followed by a ten-year Long-Term Supervision Order.
• R v Balaban, Provincial Court of Alberta, Edmonton, January 2020 (unreported)
  • The accused was charged with simple assault (s. 266 Criminal Code) arising from an alleged domestic incident.
  • After a trial spanning three days, involving an extensive cross-examination of the complainant, the accused was found guilty and given a suspended sentence with probation for 15 months.
  • The Crown consented to the defence appeal of conviction as the Judge made serious legal errors when she curtailed the defence cross-examination.