Cases

R. v. C, K
Charges: Sexual Assault x2 & Extortion

Result: Charges dismissed following a five-day trial. At trial, counsel challenged the evidence of the complainant, highlighting issues with her credibility along with a motivation to fabricate. The client provided a false statement to the police. Despite this damaging piece of evidence, the client testified and gave an explanation that the judge accepted. As a result, the client was ultimately found not guilty of all charges.

Explore Similar Cases

R v. P, T
Charges: Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference

Result: Acquitted at trial. A successful pre-trial application was brought to produce the counselling records of the complainant. At trial, complainant’s evidence was challenged, including statements contained in the third-party records, highlighting issues with her reliability and credibility. Our client also testified, and the court found his testimony credible and gave it weight in their decision. The court subsequently acquitted him of all charges.

R. v. S, H
Charges: Sexual Assault X2 and Assault

Result: Withdrawal of All Charges. A client, unhappy with their former lawyer, engaged our services. Our firm conducted a thorough review of the case and uncovered key issues, including a motive that undermined the prosecution’s case. The comprehensive analysis led to the successful withdrawal of all charges against the client, not only preventing a three-year jail sentence but also the risk of deportation.

R. v. C, B
Charges: Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference

Result: Withdrawal of All Charges Following 11(b) Application. In a complex case involving charges of sexual assault and sexual interference, counsel filed an 11(b) application seeking a stay due to unreasonable delay in the trial process. As a direct result, the Crown made the decision to withdraw all charges, saving the client from a criminal record or jail sentence.

R v. S, G (Sept 15 2022)
Charges: Impaired Operation & Over 80

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..

Explore Similar Cases

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 about consuming marijuana. Through a rigorous defence strategy and in-depth cross-examination, the client was acquitted of all charges.

R v. S, G
Charges: Impaired Operation & Over 80

Result: After a detailed review of the case’s evidence, counsel was able to highlight 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 an HTA 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 involving Charter violations, the case concluded with a Highway Traffic Act Careless Driving charge and a fine, avoiding a criminal record and preserving our client’s driving rights. Importantly, as a permanent resident, a criminal conviction could have led to deportation. We prevented this outcome.

R. v. T, W
Charges: Assault x 3

Result: Charges dismissed at trial. Following a marriage separation, the client was charged with three counts of assault. At trial, counsel was able to demonstrate several inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence. As a result, the client was acquitted of all charges.

Explore Similar Cases

R. v. R, A
Charges: Assault Choking x 2, Utter Threat x 2, & Assault

Result: Charges withdrawn. The filing of an 11(b) application citing unreasonable delays led to the Crown’s decision to withdraw all charges, upon the client entering one year peace bond.

R. v. B, P
Charges: Assault with Weapon x 2 & Assault

Result: Charges withdrawn. Through strategic discussions with the Crown, a successful resolution was achieved with the complete withdrawal of all charges. Instead, the client entered a peace bond, avoiding a criminal record and the added costs of a trial.

R v. H, K
Charges: Assault
&nbsp

Human Trafficking

R. v. G, A
Charges: P4P X4 (Fentanyl, Cocaine, & Crystal Methamphetamine)

Result: Client acquitted of all charges following a three-day preliminary hearing. A strategic review of disclosure and a tailored defence strategy highlighted significant gaps in the Crown’s case regarding knowledge and control necessary for possession. The case centered on whether our client had possession over items seized, including drugs and firearms found in a hotel room she was associated to. Despite the low threshold required to advance to trial, our strategic focus on these relevant issues led to all charges being dismissed, and client avoided a four-year jail sentence.

Explore Similar Cases

R. v. S, A
Charges: Importing Cocaine & Possession of Cocaine for Purpose of Trafficking

Result: Our client faced severe allegations involving the importation of 112.5 kg of cocaine, a case that could have resulted in a 12 + year jail sentence. After successfully securing clients release on bail and following the preliminary hearing, counsel effectively argued the absence of evidence necessary to prove client’s knowledge or control of the cocaine located in the trailer. This strategic defence led to the successful dismissal of all charges, effectively averting a criminal record, deportation, and a lengthy jail sentence

R. v. L, T
Charges: P4P X3 (Fentanyl – 567.1 Grams, Cocaine – 25 Grams, Fentanyl Patches – 16, Marijuana)

Result: Following a thorough review of the disclosure and lengthy pre-trial discussions, counsel was able to highlight the frailties with the case, notably, knowledge of the drugs. The client resolved her matters by entering a plea of guilty to one count of simple possession of cocaine (2.7 grams), and all her remaining charges were withdrawn. Client avoided a 10 + year jail sentence.

R v. L, A
Charges: Firearm & Drugs (Cocaine, Morphine, Amphetamine, Lorazepam, Alprazolam)

Result: The client’s vehicle was searched following a traffic resulting in the discovery of multiple drugs. A warrant was later executed at his residence, where a firearm and ammunition were found. A detailed examination of the information used to obtain the search warrant revealed deficiencies, leading to the withdrawal of all firearm-related charges. The client pled guilty to simple possession of cocaine, and all the remaining drug charges were also withdrawn. The money seized was returned to the client and he averted a three-year jail sentence.

Break and Enter

Fraud

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.

Explore Similar Cases

R. v. B, A
Charges: Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference

Result:

All charges were withdrawn in a case involving a young client facing accusations of sexual assault and sexual interference relating to an incident dating back eight years. Our diligent examination of the complainant’s statement revealed significant reliability issues, which were effectively highlighted to the Crown, leading to a major win for our client and avoiding added costs of a trial.

R v. S, G
Charges: Impaired Operation & Over 80

R v. A,A
Charges: Impaired Operation & Over 80

R. v. A, S
Charges: Possession of a Firearm Without a License, Occupancy in a Motor Vehicle Knowing of a Handgun Presence, and Possessing a Loaded Firearm

Result: During a traffic stop, officers approached the vehicle occupied by our client and noticed a marijuana odor, prompting them to conduct a search that uncovered a loaded gun in the trunk. The defence strategy centered around disputing any evidence of possession, knowledge, or awareness of it being loaded. The Judge presiding over the two-day preliminary hearing concurred, dismissing all charges on the grounds of inadequate circumstantial evidence to prove guilt.

Explore Similar Cases

R. v. L, T
Charges: Unauthorized Possession of Firearm and Related Charges

R. v. S, T
Charges: Unauthorized Possession of Firearm and Related Charges

Result: The execution of a search warrant at the client’s residence resulted in the seizure of multiple firearms. The defence strategy highlighted insufficient evidence pertaining to the client’s knowledge or control of the recovered firearms. This approach, alongside an emphasis on the client’s right to a speedy trial given procedural delays, led to the withdrawal of all charges. The precise advocacy preserved the client’s criminal record, prevented a four year jail sentence, and most important from avoided a deportation.

R v. S, M
Charges: Conspiracy to Commit an Indictable Offence, Possession of a Loaded Prohibited or Restricted Firearm and Many More

Result: Following a year long investigation, our client and five others were arrested, leading to a seizure of 62 firearms. The Crown’s initial resolution position included a jail sentence of 12 years. Following a year of negotiations underpinned by a detailed examination of the evidence and arguments highlighting weaknesses in the case and procedural delays, a resolution was reached involving a plea to one count of 95(1) for which our client received conditional sentence of two years less a day. All remaining charges were withdrawn.

Defending Your Rights with Proven Success

Success Story in Criminal Defense

Explore Similar Cases

Explore Similar Cases

Explore Similar Cases

Explore Similar Cases

Explore Similar Cases

Explore Similar Cases

Select Case Category

Explore Similar Cases

Explore Similar Cases

Explore Similar Cases

Explore Similar Cases

Explore Similar Cases

Open Hour

Monday to Saturday, 9:00 AM - 10:00 PM

PRACTICE AREAS

PRACTICE AREAS

head office