• Home
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Assault
    • Bail Hearing Lawyer
    • Criminal Harassment Lawyer
    • Sexual Assault
    • Sexual Interference
    • Assault with a Weapon
    • Assault Causing Bodily Harm
    • Aggravated Assault
    • Domestic Assault
    • Impaired Driving
    • Drug Lawyer
    • Fraud Lawyer
    • Impaired Driving
    • Gun Offences
    • Theft Lawyer
    • Uttering Threat Lawyer
    • Mischief Lawyer
    • Youth Offences
  • Cases
  • FAQ
  • Blog
  • Contact
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Assault
    • Bail Hearing Lawyer
    • Criminal Harassment Lawyer
    • Sexual Assault
    • Sexual Interference
    • Assault with a Weapon
    • Assault Causing Bodily Harm
    • Aggravated Assault
    • Domestic Assault
    • Impaired Driving
    • Drug Lawyer
    • Fraud Lawyer
    • Impaired Driving
    • Gun Offences
    • Theft Lawyer
    • Uttering Threat Lawyer
    • Mischief Lawyer
    • Youth Offences
  • Cases
  • FAQ
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas

    Assault

    Assault Causing Bodily Harm

    Break And Enter

    Dangerous Driving

    Uttering Threat

    Sexual Assault

    Aggravated Assault

    Criminal Harassment

    Fraud

    Theft Charges

    Sexual Interference

    Domestic Assault

    Drug Possession

    Gun Offences

    Youth Offences

    Assault With A Weapon

    Bail Hearing

    Impaired Driving

    Mischief

  • FAQ
  • Blog
  • Cases
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas

    Assault

    Assault Causing Bodily Harm

    Break And Enter

    Dangerous Driving

    Uttering Threat

    Sexual Assault

    Aggravated Assault

    Criminal Harassment

    Fraud

    Theft Charges

    Sexual Interference

    Domestic Assault

    Drug Possession

    Gun Offences

    Youth Offences

    Assault With A Weapon

    Bail Hearing

    Impaired Driving

    Mischief

  • FAQ
  • Blog
  • Cases
  • Contact Us

Featured Case

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.

Sexual Assault

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

Result: Charges dismissed at trial.   A successful pre-trial application was brought to produce counselling records of the complainant. At trial, complainant’ 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.  Court subsequently acquitted him of all charges.

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

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. C, B
Charges:
Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference

Result: Charges withdrawn by the Crown following the filing of a 11(b) application. In a complex case involving charges of sexual assault and sexual interference, counsel filed a 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 following our client entering a one-year peace bond.

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..

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 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.

Assault 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

Result:

The client had several 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 upon the client entering a twelve month peace bond.

Human Trafficking
Drugs
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.

Sexual Assault

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.

Firearm Offences

Select Case Category

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..

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..

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 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.

Assault 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

Result:

The client had several 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 upon the client entering a twelve month peace bond.

Human Traficking Cases Coming Soon
Drug Cases Coming Soon
Break and Enter Cases Coming Soon
Fraud Cases Coming Soon
YCJA Cases Coming Soon
Firearom Offences Cases Coming Soon

Don’t leave your defence to chance! Contact a Criminal Lawyer Mississauga today.

Youtube Twitter Linkedin

Open Hour

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

PRACTICE AREAS

  • Assault
  • Bail Hearing
  • Break and Enter
  • Criminal Harassment
  • Domestic Assault
  • Drug Possession Offences

PRACTICE AREAS

  • Impaired Driving
  • Fraud
  • Gun Offences
  • Mischief
  • Theft
  • Youth Offences

head office

  • Kahlon Law Professional Corporation
  • 223-6200 Dixie Rd, Mississauga, ON L5T 2E1
  • Email: info@kahlonlaw.com
  • Phone: (844) 978-8444
  • Get Directions
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • © 2023 Kahlon Law
  • All rights reserved