Driving Offences 

R v. P, T

Charges: Impaired Operation (Drugs)
Result: Charges dismissed at trial. The client was charged with impaired operation after he crashed his vehicle into a ditch and made an utterance to consuming marijuana. At trial, through successful cross-examination of the DRE & Arresting officer, counsel was able to satisfy the Judge that P,T’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was not impaired. He was acquitted of all charges.

R v. S, G

Charges: Impaired Operation & Over 80
Result: After a thorough review of all the evidence, counsel was able to highlight a number of Charter violations allowing him to secure a favourable disposition for his client. The Crown Attorney carefully considered the constitutional breaches and offered to withdraw the criminal charges for a plea to a Highway Traffic Act offence of careless driving.  This avoided a criminal conviction and allowed the client to maintain his driving privileges. More importantly, as the client held a student visa, a criminal conviction would have had severe collateral consequences including deportation.

R v. A, A

Charges: Impaired Operation & Over 80
Result: The client was charged for impaired operation and over 80 resulting from an incident while working for Uber Eats. After lengthy discussions with the crown and highlighting the Charter violations, the client’s criminal charges were withdrawn. The matter was resolved by way of a Careless Driving charge under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine. This avoided a criminal conviction and allowed the client to maintain his driving privileges. As a  permanent resident, a criminal conviction for the charged offence(s) would have had severe collateral consequences including deportation.

Sexual Assault

R. v. A, M

Charges: Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference (Minor)
Result: Charges dismissed at trial.   A pre-trial application was brought for the production of third-party counselling records of the complainant. The application was granted and the records were provided to counsel. At trial, counsel challenged the evidence, including statements contained in the third-party records, highlighting issues with the reliability and credibility of the complainant. The client also testified.  Following the trial, the court dismissed all charges against the client.

R. v. C, K

Charges: Sexual Assault x2 & Extortion

Result: Charges dismissed after a five-day trial. At trial, counsel challenged the evidence of the complainant, highlighting issues with the reliability and credibility of the complainant. The client had provided a statement to the police in which he lied to them. Despite this damaging piece of evidence, the client testified and gave an explanation that the judge accepted and, in the end, he was found not guilty of all charges.

Assault

R. v. T, W

Charges: Assault x 3
Result: Charges dismissed at trial.   Following a marriage separation, the client was charged three counts of assault. At trial, counsel was able to demonstrate a number of inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence. As a result, all charges against the client were dismissed.

R v. H, K

Charges: Assault
Result: The client had a number of domestic-related convictions on his record. Despite this, counsel secured a withdrawal of his charge by highlighting credibility issues with the complainant’s statement. As a result, the criminal charge was withdrawn and he received a 12-month peace bond.

Human Trafficking

R v. K, A

Charges: Human Trafficking and Related Offences
Result: As a result of the complainant’s credibility issues, counsel was able to persuade the Crown Attorney to withdraw all charges as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. The client entered a peace bond and all his criminal charges were dismissed prior to the preliminary hearing.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]

Break & Enter

R. v. L, V

Charges: B&E (Residential)
Result: Charged dismissed following a trial. At trial, counsel argued that the individual captured on camera was not his client along with the frailties associated with such evidence, leading to an acquittal.

Drugs & Firearm Offences

R v. L, T

Charges: P4P X3 (Fentanyl – 567.1 Grams, Cocaine – 25 Grams, Fentanyl Patches – 16, Marijuana)
Result: After a diligent review of the disclosure and lengthy pre-trial discussions, counsel was able to highlight the frailties with the case, notably, knowledge of the drugs. After lengthy pre-trial discussions, the client resolved by entering a plea of guilty to one count of simple possession of cocaine (2.7 grams), and all her remaining charges were withdrawn.

R v. F, D

Charges: P4P Fentanyl, Possession of Heroin, Carry a Concealed Weapon & Possession of a Weapon for Purpose Dangerous to the Public
Result: As a result of ongoing discussions with the prosecutor and a number of Charter breaches, the prosecutor agreed to withdraw all charges.

R v. L, T

Charges: Unauthorized Possession of Firearm and RelatedCcharges
Result: After reviewing the disclosure and lengthy pre-trial discussions, the crown agreed to withdraw all charges as the case lacked the requisite knowledge to prove she had possession of the gun.

R v. L, A

Charges: Firearm & Drugs (Cocaine, Morphine, Amphetamine, Lorazepam, Alprazolam)
Result: The client was stopped at a traffic stop resulting in a search of his vehicle where a number of drugs were located. A warrant was later executed at his house which recovered a firearm along with readily accessible ammunition. In reviewing the Information to Obtain the warrant, counsel was able to highlight the deficiencies in the warrant, resulting in the crown withdrawing the firearm-related charges. The client resolved to simple possession of cocaine charge, and all the remaining drug charges were withdrawn by the crown. The money seized was also returned to the client.

Fraud

R v. D, A

Charges: Fraud Over & Related Charges
Result: The client was arrested at a banking institution for attempting to defraud. After diligent research pertaining to the implications of a criminal record on the client’s standing with her regulatory body, FSCO and detailed discussions with the crown, counsel was able to secure a withdrawal of all charges upon client making a charitable donation.

YCJA

R v. M, R

Charges: Attempted B&E, Attempted Theft, FTC x 2
Result: On the trial date, after considering the inherent frailties with identification evidence, the Crown Attorney agreed to withdraw all charges upon successful completion of community service hours.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]