R. v. A.T. – June 2018 – Possession of a Loaded Restricted Firearm and a Substantial Quantity of Drugs Found in Two Safes in Client’s Bedroom – Charges Withdrawn at 361 University After Discussions With Crown Attorney – Issues re: Search Warrant and Knowledge and Control
R. v. J.F. – May 2018 – Client Charged With Murder After Stabbing Neighbor Over 50 Times w/a Katana Sword – Client Plead Guilty to Manslaughter After Preliminary Hearing – Issues re: Provocation and Self Defence – Client Sentenced to 6-1/2 Years
R. v. D.D. – May 2018 – Possession of a Loaded Prohibited Firearm – Charges Withdrawn in Oshawa After Discussions With Crown Attorney re: Issues With Search Warrant
R. v. A.M. – April 2018 – Utter Threats – Charges Withdrawn in Brampton – Client Accused of Threatening a Jewelry Store Clerk – Video of Beginning of Incident but Video Mysteriously Cuts off Prior to Alleged Threat
R. v. J.B. – April 2018 – Robbery w/ a Weapon – Charges Withdrawn at 1000 Finch After Discussions With Crown Attorney – Identification Issues
R. v. A.A. – March 2018 – Attempted Murder and Robbery w/ a Firearm – Charges Withdrawn at 1000 Finch – Client Charged w/ a Home Invasion Robbery Where Home Owner Was Shot – Issues re: Identification
R. v. S.C. – March 2018 – Possession of a Loaded Prohibited Firearm – Client Found Not Guilty After Trial at 361 University Avenue – Judge Found Client Was in Innocent Possession of the Firearm After He Was Seen on Video Placing it Under a Garbage Container at a Hospital – Client Was Facing Substantial Prison Time as He Had Several Prior Firearms Convictions
R. v. J.L. – February 2018 – Possession of Heroin and Crack Cocaine – All Charges Withdrawn – Client Arrested Driving a Rental Vehicle and Drugs Found Inside – Convinced Crown to Withdrawn All Charges as Substantial Charter Issues and Knowledge and Control Issues
R. v. P.R. – January 2018 – Possession of Heroin – Charges Withdrawn on Day of Trial at Brampton – Issues re: Knowledge and Control
R. v. S.M. – January 2018 – Assault w/ a Weapon and Assault Bodily Harm – Charges Withdrawn at 2201 Finch After Discussions With Crown Attorney – Issues re: Self Defence
R. v. B.M. – January 2018 – Possession of a Firearm – Charges Withdrawn at 2201 Finch
R. v. J.B. – November 2017 – Robbery – Charges Withdrawn at 1000 Finch After Discussions With Crown Attorney
R. v. N.B. – November 2017 – 2 Counts of Robbery w/ a Firearm – Charges Withdrawn After Preliminary Hearing at 2201 Finch – Issues re: Identification and Party Liability
R. v. R.G.D – September 2017 – Sex Assault x 4 – After aMulti Day Trial in Brampton Superior Court, Judge Found Client Not Guilty of All Charges – Client Was Accused of Sexually Assaulting an Individual Whom He Was in a Position of Trust Over On Several Different Occasions Over a Substantial Period of Time
R. v. J.L. – August 2017 – Possession of a Loaded Prohibited Firearm – Client Arrested Driving His Mother’s Vehicle and a Loaded Handgun is Found Inside – Client Discharged After the Preliminary Hearing in Brampton as No Evidence of Knowledge
R. v. A.A. – May 2017 – Robbery w/ a Firearm and Assault w/ a Weapon – All Charges Withdrawn at Old City Hall After Discussions With Crown Attorney
R. v. K.M. – April 2017 – Sex Assault w/ a Firearm, Robbery w/ a Firearm, Forcible Confinement – All Charges Withdrawn at Scarborough and Client Enters Plea to Weapons Dangerous After Discussions With Crown Attorney
R. v. J.L. – November 2016 – Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Cocaine – After a Multi Day Trial in Brampton Superior Court, Judge Excluded an Ounce of Crack Cocaine that Officer Recovered from Waistband of Client – Two Police Officers Claimed Client Ran a Stop Sign and Saw and Smelled Marijuana Smoke Coming Out of the Vehicle – After Cross Examination Exposing the Absurdity of Much of What These Officers Said The Judge Found Client’s Charter Rights Were Violated and Excluded the Evidence
R. v. B.M. – October 2016 – Robbery – Charges Withdrawn at Old City Hall – Client Charged With Car Jacking and Cleared After DNA Exonerated Him
R. v. B.K. – November 2016 – Robbery w/ a Firearm – Much of This Incident Was on Video – Client Found Not Guilty After Two Day Trial at Toronto West Courthouse – Complainant Alleges He Knew Client Was the Robbery Because He Went to School With Client and He Saw Client on Several Other Occasions – After Cross Examination of Complainant Showing Serious Problems With His Evidence Judge Had Serious Doubts About the Complainant’s Identification of My Client as the Person Who Robbed Him
R. v. W.M. – November 2016 – Assault – Convinced Crown to Withdraw Charges at Brampton Courthouse After Going Through Video With Crown – Client Was Alleged to Have Assaulted a Young Lady in Front of an Apartment Complex – Much of the Incident Was on Video – Video Was Ambiguous as to Whether Client Actually Assaulted Her – Complainant’s Version Was Inconsistent with Video
R. v. J.M. – November 2016 – Robbery – Charges Withdrawn at Toronto West Courthouse – Crown Alleged Client Was Part of a Premeditated Robbery – That Client Posted Ads for an Escort and Waited for Customer to Arrive and Then Robbed Him of His Money and Jewelry
R. v. T.O. – November 2016 – Client Charged with Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Cocaine – Charges Withdrawn at Hamilton Courthouse – Convinced Crown They Had No Reasonable Prospect of Conviction
R. v. R.M. – September 2016 – Client Charged with Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking a Substantial Quantity of Cocaine – Charges Withdrawn at Durham Courthouse After a Lengthy Preliminary Hearing
R. v. C.R. – July 2016 – Assault and Utter Threats – Charges Withdrawn at Scarborough Courthouse – Client Was Alleged to Have Assaulted Mall Security Officer – This Incident Was on Video – Video Was Ambiguous as to Who Started the Confrontation and Who the Initial Aggressor Was
R. v. M.A. – May 2016 – Assault w/ a Weapon, Utter Threats x 2, Weapons Dangerous – Client Found Not Guilty After Multi-Day Trial at Newmarket Courthouse – Client Alleged to Have Assaulted Another Individual w/a Knife in a Shopping Mall – Judge Had Serious Doubts About Complainant’s Version of Events After Cross Examination
R. v. A.A. – May 2016 – Assault with a Weapon and Utter Threats – Charges Withdrawn at College Park Courthouse – Client Was Accused of Assaulting Another Individual With a Knife – Much of the Incident Was Captured on a Cell Phone Camera – Defence Was Able to Show Client Was Acting in Self Defence
R. v. P.B. – February 2016 – Possession of a Prohibited Firearm w/ Ammunition – Client Found Not Guilty After a 3 Day Judge Alone Trial in Superior Court at 361 University Avenue – Client was Accused of Possessing a “Mac-10″, a Fully Automatic Sub-Machine Gun and a Large Amount of Ammunition – The Firearm and Ammunition Were Found in a Bedroom Near a Large Amount of Documents That Had the Client’s Name and Address on Them
R. v. Z.H. – January 2016 – Robbery w/ a Firearm x 3 and Unlawful Confinement x 3 – Client Found Not Guilty of All Counts After a 3 Week Jury Trial in Superior Court at 361 University Avenue – Client Was Accused of Setting Up an Armed Robbery Where 3 Victims Were Held at Gun Point in their Vehicle and Forced to Drive Around Town to Get Money
R. v. C.S. – November 2015 – Robbery w/ a Firearm, Disguise w/ Intent, Forcible Confinement, Assault w/ a Weapon – Client Found Not Guilty of All Counts after an 18 Day Jury Trial in Superior Court at 361 University Ave. – Client was Accused of Going Into an Armored Car Wharehouse and Stealing Over $700,000. Cash at Gunpoint
R. v. C.S. – October 2015 – Assault Bodily Harm Peace Officer x 3, Intimidation of a Criminal Justice System Participant x 5, Assault Peace Officer – Client Found Not Guilty of All Counts after 5 Day Jury Trial in Brampton Superior Court
R. v. B.R. – October 2015 – Production of Marijuana – Possession For the Purpose of Trafficking Marijuana, Mushrooms and Hash Oil, Possession of Oxycodone, Codeine, and Habilone – Client`s Residence Was Searched Pursuant to a Search Warrant – All Charges Withdrawn in Sudbury Provincial Court After Cross Examination of the Searching Officer
R. v. J.B. – September 2015 – Possession For the Purpose of Trafficking Cocaine and Marijuana – All Charges Withdrawn at Old City Hall Courthouse
R. v. O.E. – September 2015 – Aggravated Assault, Assault Bodily Harm x 2, and Robbery – Client Found Not Guilty after a 17 Day Jury Trial in Superior Court at 361 University Avenue – Client Was Accused of Assaulting Several Hotel Employees and Stealing Their Personal Property
R. v. V.S. – July 2015 – Assault w/a Weapon and Mischief Under – Client Found Not Guilty after 1 Day Trial in Newmarket – Client was Accused of Assaulting a Bartender and Damaging Property
R. v. M.D. – June 2015 – Living Off the Avails of Prostitution, Exercising Control, and Procuring – Client Found Not Guilty of All Counts After 5 Day Superior Court Trial at 361 University Avenue
R. v. W.M. – March 2015 – Client Originally Charged w/ Attempted Murder, 8 Counts of Robbery w/ a Firearm, 3 Counts of Kidnapping, and Assault w/ a Weapon – Crown was Originally Asking for 12-15 Year Sentence – After Preliminary Hearing Weaknesses in the Case Were Exposed – Convinced Crown to Reduce Charges to Robbery w/ a Firearm and Unlawful Confinement – Client Received a 5 Year Sentence.
R. v. P.D. – January 2015 – Attempted Murder – Charges Reduced to Aggravated Assault – Client was Accused of Attempting to Kill His Girlfriend – Convinced Judge in Hamilton Superior Court to Give Client a Lesser Sentence Than the Crown was Asking For
R. v. D.C. – January 2015 – Fail to Comply w/ Probation – Charges Withdrawn at 2201 Finch Ave. West – Client was charged with Violating a No Contact Order
R. v. O.P. – October 2014 – Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Cocaine and Oxy – Evidence Excluded in Brampton Superior Court after Charter Application Granted and evidence excluded – Judge found police did not have reasonable grounds to arrest my client
R. v. A.A. – September 2014 – Assault – Charges Withdrawn at College Park Provincial Court – Domestic Assault Case – Complainant was jealous over my client’s contact with a female friend at a club and started a fight with that female friend – She is injured and loses fight and accuses client of assaulting her
R. v. L.H. – July 2014 – Production of Marijuana – Charges Withdrawn in Barrie Provincial Court
R. v. J.M. – June 2014 – Aggravated Assault x 5 and Discharge Firearm x 4 and Possession of a Loaded Restricted Firearm – Client discharged after the Preliminary Hearing at College Park – Although client was found a short distance away with a loaded handgun in his waistband, the Crown did not have enough evidence to prove that my client was the shooter at the nightclub where 5 people were shot
R. v. A.N. – May 2014 – First Degree Murder – Client initially charged with First Degree Murder – After a lengthy Jury Trial in Superior Court at 361 University Avenue client was found Not Guilty – Although client was in a vehicle with a loaded sawed off shotgun right before the murder of one individual and the shooting of three others and had words with the murder victim right before the shooting, the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that my client was responsible for the shooting or murder
R. v. K.W. – February 2014 – Break and Enter – Client found Not Guilty after 1 day Trial at 2201 Finch Ave. West
R. v. D.M. – January 2014 – Living off the Avails of Prostitution and Assault and Exercising Control Over a Person to Aid them in Engaging in Prostitution – Client released on bail at Brampton Provincial Court
R. v. M.B. – January 2013 – Trafficking Cocaine – Charge Withdrawn at Old City Hall on the day of the Preliminary Hearing – The individual my client allegedly trafficked cocaine to was not a credible witness. Despite the very low standard at a preliminary hearing the Crown knew they would not be able to show my client trafficked cocaine to her
R. v. E.C. – February 2013 – Assault x 2 and Threaten Death – Charges Withdrawn at College Park Courthouse – Client was accused of fighting with two women – Persuaded Crown their version of events was just not credible – Defence witnesses were found to contradict their version of events
R. v. M.A. – February 2013 – Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference – Charges Withdrawn in Brampton Superior Court after the preliminary hearing and before scheduled trial – Both the complainant and the complainant’s mother were cross examined at the preliminary hearing and there were substantial inconsistencies in their evidence
R. v. S.R. – February 2013 – Robbery with a Firearm – Charges Withdrawn on day of trial at 2201 Finch Avenue West – The witnesses were not credible and there were serious issues with respect to the identification of my client, whether he was even involved
R. v. S.R. – February 2013 – Possession of Property Obtained by Crime – Withdrawn at 2201 Finch Ave. West – Client was alleged to have taken someone’s motor vehicle – The vehicle was stolen but the Crown could not prove my client stole the vehicle so they needed to prove that my client knew the vehicle was stolen. I convinced the Crown it would have been impossible to prove my client knew the vehicle was stolen given that the keys were in the vehicle
R. v. J.T. – March 2013 – Assault and Threaten Death – Charges Withdrawn at Scarborough Provincial Court – Client allegedly assaulted his sister – There was an ongoing feud between client and his sister so there was plenty of motive for my client’s sister to make up the allegations
R. v. M.B. – March 2013 – Threaten Death x 2 and Causing a Disturbance – Charges Withdrawn at Scarborough Courthouse – Client was alleged to have threatened police officers – Police officers approached my client in a parking lot – My client believed he was being racially profiled by the TAVIS Unit of the Toronto Police Service – Convinced the Crown on the day of trial that my client had a right to speak his mind and that what my client said to the police did not amount to a threat in law or any other crime – Unbeknownst to the Crown and the police we had video evidence of witnesses that the police were not being truthful about their version of events
R. v. W.E. – April 2013 – Theft Under and Criminal Breach of Trust – Client found Not Guilty after a Judge Trial at 2201 Finch Ave. West – Client was accused along with her boyfriend of staging a break and enter whereby client’s boyfriend went through the drive through window late at night and stole a sum of money from the cash register when client was not at the register – Crown could not prove this was an inside job nor that the person who took the money was my client’s boyfriend
R. v. H.A. – April 2013 – Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle – Charge Withdrawn in Brampton Provincial Court – Convinced the Crown to withdraw the charge based on compassionate grounds – Sometimes even though you don’t have a good factual or legal defence you may be able to get your case withdrawn if you can convince the Crown that a criminal conviction, regardless of sentence, will have a substantially adverse effect on your life
R. v. S.S. – May 2013 – Possession of a Loaded Restricted Firearm – Charges Withdrawn at Brampton Superior Court in the middle of a Garafoli Application to exclude the evidence based on an unlawful search of the client’s home – I attacked the grounds the police allegedly had to get the warrant – In the middle of this hearing the Crown withdrew the case against my client. I suspect this was because the confidential informant was not a reliable source. It was the defence theory that the confidential informant was the person who actually placed the firearm in my client’s residence
R. v. C.S. – May 2013 – Robbery w/ a Firearm – Bail hearing held with 3 other co-accused at Old City Hall – Client was released on bail – 3 other co-accused were not – Allegation is that client and co-accused forced their way into a business at gun point, tied up an individual inside, and stole a substantial amount of money
R. v. C.C. – June 2013 – Trafficking Cocaine and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Cocaine – Client released on bail at Old City Hall – Accused of possessing about 9 ounces of cocaine
R. v. N.E. – August 2013 – Possession of a Loaded Restricted Firearm – Withdrawn at Superior Court at 361 University Avenue – Client’s home was searched and a loaded handgun was found in her home – I was able to show the handgun belonged to her boyfriend
R. v. W.E. – August 2013 – Fail to Comply With Recognizance x 2 and Obstruct Police – Charges Withdrawn at 2201 Finch Ave. West – Client was accused of lying to the police about her name because she was driving in a car with her co-accused whom she was not supposed to have contact with – There is a defence to this charge if there is a lawful excuse – We were able to convince the Crown that there was a reasonable and lawful excuse for the two of them to be in contact with each other
R. v. W.M. – August 2013 – Discharge Firearm – Possession of Loaded and Restricted Firearm – Client released on bail at 1000 Finch. Ave. – Release on bail pending the resolution of charges is a very important first step – There are many studies done that show the likelihood of success substantially increases if one is released on bail – I put a lot of work into bail hearings for all of my clients
R. v. R.H. – September 2013 – Assault – Charges Withdrawn at Scarborough Provincial Court – Client was defending his child and girlfriend against a drink attacker – Convinced Crown that although client may have won the fight he was lawfully acting in self defence
R. v. A.C. – September 2013 – Trafficking in Persons and Living off the Avails of Prostitution and Exercise Control – Client released on bail at Oshawa Provincial Court
R. v. P.B. – September 2013 – Possession of Loaded Prohibited Firearm – Client Released on Bail at Old City Hall – A Loaded Machine Gun was allegedly found in client’s bedroom pursuant to a search warrant – Getting released on bail while your charges are pending before the Courts is a very important first step – I put a substantial amount of preparation into bail hearings
R. v. D.C. – October 2013 – Money Laundering – Charges Withdrawn at Cochrane Provincial Court
R. v. J.F. – October 2013 – Robbery and Assault – Charges Withdrawn at 2201 Finch Ave. West after convincing the Crown that complainant was lying – I was able to produce several witnesses with a convincing alternative story and complainant was arrested a short time later severely intoxicated
R. v. B.N. – October 2013 – Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Cocaine – Charges Withdrawn on first day or trial in Superior Court at 361 University Ave. – I alleged client was unlawfully arrested when police arrested him pursuant to a tip from mall security – The video evidence that we had did not support law enforcement’s conclusion that my client was selling drugs in a shopping mall – Police then allege they got the wrong video – This did not help their cause as lost evidence is a ground for a stay of proceedings
R. v. J.H. – October 2013 – Possession For the Purpose of Trafficking Cocaine – Client released on bail at Old City Hall
R. v. J.Z. – Trafficking Firearms – Possession of Multiple Firearms – Client released on bail
R. v. G.A. – December 2013 – Assault x 2 and Sex Assault – Charges Withdrawn at 2201 Finch Ave. West – Credibility issues given the history between the client and the complainant
R. v. W.E. – October 2012 – Fail to Comply with Recognizance of Bail – Charge Withdrawn at 2201 Finch Ave. West – Client accused of communicating with a co-accused in her case – We were able to show that this was not a willful breach of a court order as the co-accused was sending her text messages
October 2012 – R. v. M.P. – Client was charged with First Degree Murder in the killing of his wife in their home
Client allegedly stabbed his wife in the living room not long after his wife found out he was having an affair with another woman
Within minutes the victim’s mother came upstairs to find my client with a knife in his hands Police and emergency services arrived and found the victim alive but severely injured The victim told police my client was responsible for her injuries The victim died shortly after arriving at the hospital
After a 5 week jury trial the jury came back with a Verdict of Guilty on Second Degree Murder Instead of spending the rest of his life in prison my client will be parolled
August 2012 – R. v. W.M. – Client was charged with Kidnapping with a Firearm, Robbery with a Firearm, Point Firearm, Assault, and Taking a Motor Vehicle Without Consent
All Charges were Withdrawn on the first day of the Superior Court trial at 361 University
Client was alleged to have car-jacked a young lady who was sitting in her car outside of a shopping mall while her boyfriend went inside to talk to a friend
Client allegedly enters the car at gun point and orders the young female to drive off
The two drove out of the area where he allegedly ordered her out of the car and drove the car away
My client maintained that the car was taken with the woman’s consent as part of a fraudulent scheme to take “steal” the car and report it stolen so they could get the insurance money and sell the car overseas
The alleged victims forgot some very important items in the vehicle and a substantial amount of cash
When the allged victims demanded he bring the money and items back to them he refused
This angered the alleged victims so instead of claiming they did not know the car-jacker as planned they decided to finger my client
Unfortunately for them the items in the car, which included a flash drive full of fraudulent documents exposing this fraudulent scheme, enabled me to destroy them in cross examination and expose the truth in this matter
On the first day of trial I sat down with the Crown Attorney and laid all my cards out on the table which convinced him to withdraw these very serious charges
July 2012 – R. v. E.E. – Client charged with multiple counts of Sex Assault and Sexual Interference for a series of acts allegedly perpetrated on his step-daughter over a lengthy period of time in Brampton Provincial Court
After 6 days of trial the case was resolved whereby client entered a plea to 1 count of Simple Assault
Sexual Assault is one of the most serious charges in the Canadian Criminal Code
Not only are you facing serious time in prison, but you will be required to register as a sex offender and be subject to a lengthy term of probation or parole
These cases require a very experienced criminal lawyer in your corner
These cases often require the delicate task of cross examining family members and very young children who would appear not to have any motive to lie about an allegation like this
It is my experience in dealing with hundreds of cases like this that there is always a motive behind these allegations that needs to be exposed and corroborated
July 2012 – R. v. A.G. – Client was charged with Sexual Assault, Robbery, Choking, and Threaten Death
The client plead guilty to a Simple Assault and Theft Under on the day this matter was set for the Preliminary Hearing at 2201 Finch Court
Client was alleged to have sexually assaulted a woman in the hallway of an apartment complex late at night
Video surveillance captured some of their movements in the apartment building that night
Client adamantly denied sexually assaulting the woman and the video surveillance partially corroborated the client’s innocence
Crown Attorney would have had a very difficult time proving a sexual assault in this case given all the circumstances in this case
The alleged victim would have been subject to a very long cross examination at the preliminary hearing and subsequent jury trial in this matter and would have had a lot of explainaing to do given her allegation
Client was looking at a substantial amount of jail time IF convicted – instead my client walked out of custody that day
July 2012 – R. v. T.B. – Client was charged with Sexual Assault, Robbery, and Assault with a Weapon in Brampton Provincial Court
Client plead guilty to a simple assault charge
Client was alleged to have followed a young girl home from school
The altercation was caught on video and placed on You Tube
Client never denied there was an assault but adamantly denied there was any sexual motivation behind it and denied there was ever any intent to rob this individual of anything
The video greatly assissted in our defence and ultimately lead to the dissmissal of the Sex Assault, Robbery, and Assault with a Weapon charges.
July 2012 – R. v. G.M. – Client was charged with Robbery in Newmarket Provincial Court
Allegation was that my client and two other individuals followed the owner of several Tim Hortons franchises to the bank one day
It was alleged they had studied her routine and knew she would be making a bank deposit of a substantial amount of money
After the victim pulled into the parking lot two of the suspects approached her, took her cell phone, and took several bags containing money out of her car and ran to the get-away car where a third suspect was waiting
Several good samaritans obtained the license plate number of the get-away car which lead to the capture of the three suspects
Two of the co-accused plead guilty and one of them was called to testify agaionst my client – so the Crown Attorney thought
The judge commented during the three day trial that he could not believe a word that the co-accused said
The Crown Attorney did the right thing and invited an acquittal of my client on all charges
May 2012 – R. v. B.M. – Client was charged with Assault With a Weapon in Brampton Provincial Court
Allegation was that client was in a fight with another woman and during the fight my client pulled out a metal object to assault the alleged victim and poured bleach on the victim causing injury to her eyes
Charges were Withdrawn – Crown Attorney would have had a difficult time proving who in fact assaulted the alleged victim and overcoming a strong claim of self-defence
March 2012 – R. v. A.B. – Client was charged with Impaired Driving, Over .08 – 1 Day Trial at Old City Hall
Two police officers were sitting at the intersection of Bathurst and DuPont when a concerned citizen went up them an reported a red sedan traveling north on Bathurst was driving very erratically. Officers travel north and see my client driving a red sedan and claim to observe some minor traffic violations. They turn on lights and sirens and report client was slow to respond and pull over. When my client did pull over he put the vehicle in reverse for no apparent reason almost striking he police car. The driving is captured on the in car video camera. Client exits vehicle and officers claim to detect a very strong odour of alcohol on his breath. Police inform client they will be requesting an approved screening device be brought to the scene to get a breath sample to determine if he will blow a pass or fail and either arrest him or let him go. The machine arrives 12 minutes later, he blows a fail, he is arrested and taken to the police station where he blows a .12/.12
In this case the police provided the roadside alcohol screening device within 12 minutes.
The officer who detained my client and requested the breath machine to be brought to the roadside never inquired how far away the machine was when he requested it and hence how long it would take for the machine to get to him and my client. It was my position that even though the machine happened to arrive in only 12 minutes, my client’s rights essentially depended upon chance and that ones Charter Rights should never be dependent upon luck or chance. An officer who demands a breath sample cannot be said to be providing it “forthwith” if that officer does not know when the breath machine will arrive.
The Judge agreed with me and ruled there was a breach of my client’s Charter Rights in the circumstances and excluded the results of the roadside alcohol screening device under Section 24(2).
Without this test the officer had no grounds to arrest my client and hence the breath tests given at the police station were also excluded and that killed the Crown’s case on that charge
I convinced the Crown after the Judge’s ruling that she would not prevail on the impaired charge based upon everything my client did right, the evidence of my client’s sobriety, and that charge was withdrawn. If you are facing an impaired driving charge, an experienced cirminal defence lawyer is crucial to your success.
March 2012 – R. v. M.B. – Client charged with Fail To Comply w/ Probation in Brampton Provincial Court – Charge was withdrawn before a trial was even set when I convinced Crown of the strength of my Charter argument. My client was unlawfully detained and searched for absolutely no reason when police approched him in the parking lot of a night club, they claimed he was smoking marijuana. An experioenced criminal defence lawyer can help get your charges withdrawn in a quick and efficient manner to help you get on with your life and avoid senseless court appearances
March 2012 – R. v. M.S. –Client charged with violating his Conditional Sentence. After a 1 day trial in Superior Court at 361 University Ave. the judge found my client Not Guilty – My client was alleged to have violated his house arrest condition. Police went to his residence and did not find him there. His sister allegedly tod the police he had not been there for days. My client was allowed out of the house to go to and from work but police claimed they could not find a business license for the business my client said he was working for. After a thorough research and a thorough cross examination of the Crown witnesses I was able to prove my client was working and that the research the police did was inadequate. An experienced criminal defence lawyer often times needs to do their own investigation and gather their own evidence to secure acquittals on behalf of their clients
February 2012 – R. v. A.S. – Client was charged with 2 Counts of Possession of a Loaded Restricted Firearm
Client was alleged to have been prowling in backyards with others. Police are called and client is ultimately arrested in a taxi. Also in the back seat of the taxi was a backpack with a loaded handgun. The next day police search the area and find another loaded handgun on a fence line not far from where my client was seen. When client is pulled over in the back of a taxi, another individual gets out and runs. The evidence of the police was all over the place. The evidence of the taxi driver was much different than his video taped statement. When police ordered my client out of the car, the opposite side that he was sitting on, he had to grab the backpack to move it out of his way. An experienced criminal defence lawyer can make the best of a bad situation. When witnesses tell conflicting stories your criminal defence lawyer should be able to think quickly on their feet and know how manipulate that situation to your best advantage. In this case my client was looking at a minumum of 5 to 6 years in prison. After cross examination of the witnesses and after a 6 Day Preliminary Hearing in Oshawa Provincial Court my client was discharged on 1 Firearm and Plead Guilty to Occupying a Motor Vehicle for the second firearm and received a 12 Month Sentence.
January 2012 – R. v. D.R. – Client was charged with Three Counts of Possession of a Loaded Restricted Firearm and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Cocaine and Marijuana. Client was at his Aunt’s residence when a search warrant was executed. Guns and Gangs Task Force claimed my client was located in the laundry room upon their entry. After a thorough search of the residence police found a quantity of marijuana in the living room, a quantity of crack cocaine in the laundry room, equipment and utensils they claimed were used to cook crack cocaine in the laundry room, and 3 loaded handguns were also found in the laundry room. Two of the loaded handguns were found above an obviously damaged piece of ceiling drywall and another loaded handgun was found next to the dryer. I methodically went through every piece of evidence with the officers and established that although there were a large number of prohibited items and the circumstances were very suspicious, none of the items were actually in plain view. As an experienced criminal defence lawyer I know that proving possessions is not as easy as it seems. You need an experienced criminal defence lawyer to argue that the facts and the law do not equal proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case I was able to get the charges withdrawn after a 9 day preliminary hearing at 1000 Finch. My client was never put in jeopardy of having to go to trial.
December 2011 – R. v. J.B. 9 Day Jury Trial at 361 University
Client was charged with Possession of a Loaded Restricted Firearm, a hand gun, and a significant amount of crack cocaine.
A two day preliminary hearing was held at 1000 Finch in which I disclovered there was a substantial amount of further information I needed to get my hands on in regards to the rental car my client was driving.
Client was driving a rental car and police testified they observed him make a high speed right hand turn. Police turn around to follow him and find his car parked and him walking away from it. While following the vehicle police also receive information over the police computer that this vehicle was involved in a shooting. Police order the client back to the vehicle. The officers then demand license, registration, and insurance. As soon as client open the front passenger door police testify they smell the odor of marijuana. Based on this they place client under arrest and search his vehicle incident to that arrest. Police find $400.00 in the centre console, a scale between the console and the passenger seat, and they testify the gear shift panelling was loose, they pulled it up, and find a hand gun and a significant quantity of crack cocaine in a void under the gear shift. They also find zip lock bags in the trunk. The vehicle was found by police and searched shortly before my client rented this vehicle. The vehicle was not rented to anyone between the time police returned it and the time my client rented it. The owner of the rental agency testified and I was able to show through cross examination that they really do not do much to clean their vehicles between renters. The Crown called one key, and last minute, witness. This rental car was searched by a forensics investigator after the car was located by police and then returned back to the rental company. This forensics officer testified that he did a thorough search of the inside of the vehicle, that he looked between the seats and the centre console and there was nothing there. He also testified that he grabbed the paneling surrounding the gearshift and shook it and that it was factory tight. If believed this would lead to one conclusion and one conclusion only, that it was my client who loosened that paneling to conceal the contraband. An experienced criminal defence lawyer knows how to cross examine even the most experienced officers. It was my cross examination of the forensics officer that secured my clients acquittal on all counts.
September to November 2011 – R. v. H.M. – Jury Trial in Oshawa Superior Court
My client was charged with Fraud Over, Conspiracy to Commit Fraud Over, and Participating in a Criminal Organization.
This was a case in which there were multiple co-accused charged with running an advanced loan scheme. Advertisements were placed in newspapers all across the United States offering loans to people who have bad credit. People would call in to fraudulent loan companies and were told to send insurance money or processing fees. There were several boiler rooms discovered in several different residences. A search warrant was executed at my client’s home and an active boiler room was discovered. Many loan sheets, multiple ringing phones, computers, fax machines, and shredded paper were found. There was also a large quantity of marijuana found in the basement.
After lengthy preliminary hearing my client was discharged on the Conspiracy Count.
Three or four of the co-accused plead guilty between the preliminary hearing and the trial.
After a lengthy jury trial my client was 1 of only two clients who were acquitted of all charges.
After cross examination of the many police officers involved in this investigation, search and surveillance officers, and in meticulously going through the video they took of my client’s residence at the time the search warrant was executed, I was able to corroborate everything my client told the jury, essentially that she was not involved and did not know what was going on.
An experienced criminal defence lawyer knows that it is essential to find evidence corroborating the clients evidence. In many cases like this one it will initially appear that there is just so much evidence against you. The journey to an acquittal starts with attack on one piece of evidence at a time.
May 2011 – R. v. F.T. – 9 Day Jury Trial in Brampton Superior Court
Client was charged with Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference for a long standing sexual relationship between him and his girlfriend’s young neice. The young girl’s uncle and two aunts testified they witnessed odd behavior by my client which made them very suspicious. The young girl claimed my client was having sex with her on an almost daily basis over a lengthy period of time when she was living with my client and her aunt, my client’s girlfriend.
On one occasion the uncle claimed to have walked in on my client and the young girl in the laundry room where she was alleged to have been sitting on my client’s lap.
There was also evidence from the young girl’s cell phone which documented some sort of long standing relationship as there were a lot of text messages back and forth between my client and the young girl. In these messages my client was expressing his love for her, asking her to meet him at certain places in the home where the rest of the family would not see them, and asking her if she loved him. I argued there were two equally plausible explanations, the Crown’s theory that my client was grooming her, and my client’s theory that she had a crush on him and he was telling her he only loved her as a father.
I admitted to the jury that the conversations were immature and un-wise but not criminal and did not document a crime. I argued that my client loved her as a daughter and was genuinely concerned for her. The alleged victim had also made a false allegation against her real father, although she claimed my client told her to do it so she could remain living with him and her mother.
The jury acquitted Mr. Twum in less than an hour. An experienced criminal defence lawyer is absolutely necessary when facing such serious charges. An experienced criminal defence lawyer needs to know not only the law, but how to cross examine young girls in these situations and how to cross examine the family so as to show the jury that your theory of events is the true version of events.
May 2010 – R. v. M.A. – 10 day Trial at Brampton Superior Court
A handful of officers were involved in unlawfully detaining my client and allegedly obtaining three different confessions about a small amount of marijuana in the vehicle. The unlawful detention lead to a vehicle search in which a large amount of crack cocaine and scales were found in the trunk of the vehicle. My client was a rear passenger with access to the trunk. Judge found breaches of Sections 8, 9, and 10 and excluded the physical evidence and my client’s confessions.
I was able to establish in cross examination that the two original officers had no reason to detain or arrest my client. They were seen exiting a strip club and the vehicle had been stopped numerous times by Toronto Police. There were many important inconsistencies between these two original arresting officers with respect to what passengers said what and what was allegedly seen in plain view inside the vehicle. Officers claimed to have smelled marijuana coming from the vehicle and one officer claims to get a confession that marijuana was presently inside the vehicle. Officers ordered everyone out of the vehicle and arrested everyone based on this evidence.
I was able to establish that my client was never informed of the reason for the detention and that his rights to counsel were never read to him prior to the first and second statements. Although two officers testified that they had read his rights to him, I was able to establish through other officers that would have been present at those times that this in fact did not happen. My client was interrogated twice before rights were given to him.
Judge found violations of Sections 8, 9, and 10 and excluded all the physical evidence and all of my client’s statements and a verdict of Not Guilty was entered.
It takes an experienced criminal defence lawyer to win these types of cases. You must aggressively go after the police and play each officer’s evidence off of all the other officers. You are also dealing with a client who confessed. The judge knows the client is factually guilty. Therefore you must not only show there were breaches of your client’s rights but that the breaches were extremely aggregious.
August 2009 – R. v. W.M. – Jury Trial at 361 University
My client was charged with Possession of a Loaded Restricted Firearm and Assault with Intent to Resist Arrest.
This case started with a caller reporting that someone matching my client’s description was in possession of a handgun. There was pre-trial motion to exclude this evidence as hearsay. The Crown was seeking to admit it and I was able to get this evidence excluded so the jury never heard it.
The allegation was that as my client was running from the police when he threw a firearm and then very shortly thereafter assaulted an officer at the time of his apprehension. The police officer who claimed my client threw the hand gun was right behind him at the time and claims he saw the object leave my client’s hand and heard it land in some bushes making a crashing sound. My theory was that the officer never saw an object leave my hand, as no other officer saw this, and that the sound he heard was another person who was also in the area. The police claimed they did not see anyone else in the area. My client allegedly threw the gun after a fairly lengthy foot pursuit and both the officer and my client were breathing very hard, running on dirt ground partially covered with branches, and very tired. My client would have been too tired to assault the other officers as they had described and the officer would not have been able to hear a gun crashing onto a bush at the distance that he claimed with the noise he and my client were creating during this foot pursuit. If the officer did hear a crashing sound, that would be much more consistent with someone the size of a human being as opposed to an object the size of a handgun. The jury found my client Not Guilty on all counts.
An experienced criminal defence lawyer knows they should visit crime scenes if at all possible. It was only after going to the scene that I was able to envision what must have happened that day. This is what lead to my ability to convince the jury that the police officers involved in this case just got the wrong guy and there was no way my client was in any physical condition to assault anyone after the chase that had just happened.
February 2009 – R. v. M.B. – Client charged with Murder in the Second Degree after stabbing a man at an apartment complex in front of his young son and many witnesses. During a lengthy preliminary hearing in Kitchener Provincial Court, a number of eyewitnesses testified about what had happened. It became clear that self defence, and the reasonableness of my client’s actions, would be the major issue at the trial for the defence. It also became clear that there was an issue as to when my client obtained the knife that was used to stab the victim; did he have it on him the whole time and only pull it out when absolutely necessary, or did he go upstairs during the fight to get it and come back down and use it as two witnesses had testified, thus showing that this may have been premeditated. If a jury believed these two witnesses the reasonableness of my client’s actions would be greatlyundermined. In cross examining these crucial witnesses I was able to cast significant doubt on their version of events. After the preliminary hearing the Crown offered my client a plea to manslaughter. Very tough decision for the client. He could have been acquitted, but if convicted would have been sentenced to a very lengthy sentence. He ultimately accepted the offer. A good criminal defence lawyer, because of their skills inside the courtroom, will often force the Crown to make very good offers. This in turn forces the client to have to make very tough and life altering decisions.
February 2009 – R. v. C.W. – Client charged in Newmarket Provincial Court with Theft and Possession of Property Obtained by Crime – Client was alleged to have stolen some scrap metal that was left on private property. It is a defence to theft if the property appears to have been abandoned. Although the property was left on private property, it appeared to have been discarded as junk, and my client reasonable believed that it was abandoned. My client collected it and turned it in to a recycler where it was subsequently found and linked back to my client. The Crown has the burden to prove that my client was the individual who took the metal and turned it in to the recycler. The Crown would have had a problem proving this. A good criminal defence lawyer knows when to show his hand to the Crown and knows when to play his cards close to the vest. In this case there was no harm in showing the Crown how weak their case was because there was nothing they could do to fix it on the day of trial. I was able to convince the Crown to withdraw the case on the day of trial and save my client from sitting around all day in court.
December 2008 to April 2009 – R. v. A.D. – Client charged with 2 Counts of Assault w/ a Weapon. The trials were held at 1000 Finch and Old City Hall Courthouses. Client was alleged to have assaulted his two step children with a belt, a wood board, and various other items. Both children gave statements stating that my client had repeatedly assaulted them, so everyone thought. Cross examination of a young child is very tricky. I have cross examined and interviewd many young children who have made horrific allegations. As an experienced criminal defence lawyer I could see that these two children were actually talking about their biological father and not my client. After cross examination of the first child that became abundantly clear. The Crown did not even call the second child to testify which resulted in a directed verdict of not guilty on one count. After lengthy closing arguments the judge found my client not guilty on the other count.
November 2008 – R. v. M.B. – Client charged with Possession of Cocaine at Toronto West Provincial Court. Charge was withdrawn on the day of trial. Police go to a park late at night in response to neighbors complaining that people in the park are being noisy and drinking alcohol. Police see client driving out of the park as they are driving in. Police stop client and ask him to get out of the vehicle to perform a pat down search and observe alcohol and cocaine in the car. There were obvious violations of his Charter Rights as he was stopped and detained without reasonable and probable grounds and he was asked to get out of his vehicle for a search for which there were no reasonable and probable grounds. A good criminal defence lawyer can convince a Crown Attorney to withdraw a case in which there are blatant violations of one’s Charter Rights by providing a well written factum and application ahead of time and persuasively and politely speaking to them prior to court.
November 2008 – R. v. S.H. – Charged with Obstruct and 2 Counts of Fail to Comply with Bail Recognizance in Oshawa Provincial Court. Client was charged with lieing to police about their name and being in contact with an individual they were not supposed to be in contact with – After a full day of trial Crown Attorney withdrew the 2 Counts of Failing to Comply with the Bail Recognizance. A good criminal defence lawyer should fight hard to beat these charges because once you have a record for failing to comply with bail it makes it that much more difficult to get released on a bail in the future. Crown was unable to prove the identity of the of the person my client was in contact with through admissible evidence.
October 2008 – R. v. J.L. – Charged with Fail to Comply Bail Recognizance in Scarborough Provincial Court – Charges were withdrawn on day of trial
September 2008 – R. v. D.T. – Charged with Carrying Concealed Weapon and Possession of a Prohibited Weapon at Old City Hall – Charges were withdrawn on day of trial after I convinced Crown Attorney the police did not have any lawful grounds to stop my client or search him and his vehicle and thus violating his rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. An experienced criminal lawyer can spot infringements of your Charter Rights and be able to articulate them through cross examination of the offending officers and in legal argument to the trial judge and the Crown Attorney.
August 2008 – R. v. F.G. – Charged with Fail to Comply with Bail Recognizance in Brampton Provincial Court – Charges were withdrawn after I was able to convince the Crown Attorney they could not prove their case – A good criminal defence lawyer can make it very difficult to prove you have failed to comply with a bail recognizance. The Crown Attorney must prove you have failed to comply with your bail conditions and they must produce the required paper work to show what those conditions are and that they were in effect at the time of the alleged breach.
