Case Examples
The following summaries are just a brief example
of criminal cases that I have represented my clients on, the
names of the clients have been removed in order to protect their
privacy and confidentiality:
R . v. Youth - Manslaughter
Client charged
with Manslaughter following altercation at a house party.
Through the course of a three week jury trial I was able to
illicit evidence that almost all of the underage partygoers were
intoxicated, that the majority of those at the party engaged in
taunting and teasing of my client. In cross-examination on e of
the deceased friends confirmed that he had thought that the
incident was an accident. Following over one and a half hours of
crown submissions and an hour and fifteen minutes of defence
submission the jury deliberated for less than 3 hours and
returned a Not Guilty verdict. See link below for newspaper
coverage.
Link to Newspaper
article verdict
Link to Newspaper article submissions
R v. L
- Attempt Murder,
Theft Over $5,000, Dangerous Driving, etc
Client
was charged with Attempt Murder, Theft Over $5,000, Possession of Stolen Property,
Dangerous Driving, Driving While Prohibited. Through negotiation with crown counsel and as
a result of cross-examination of crown witnesses at Preliminary Inquiry charges were
reduced to Possession of Stolen Property, Dangerous Driving and Driving While Prohibited.
R. v. K - Fraud Over $5,000, and Fraud Under $5,000
x 6
In this high profile matter the client was charged with
defrauding members of the public by soliciting donations while
claiming to have cancer. The case was broadcast worldwide as a
result of the nature of the fraud and the use of Facebook to
further the fraud. The initial public outcry in this matter was
extreme and widespread. At the bail hearing of the matter I was
able to convince the court that the client could be released on
her own recognizance without a surety but under the supervision
of the John Howard Society.
Following the client's release I has able to provide
additional details regarding the client to Crown in order to
negotiate an appropriate plea while substantially reducing the
number of charges.
CTV Coverage of Press Conference following Initial Guilty Plea
Hamilton Spectator report after plea entered
This matter took 8 months to resolve, however, in the end the
court and the Crown agreed that the appropriate sentence for the
client and society was one of a Conditional Sentence followed by
probation. This sentence was structured specifically to address
any underlying issues leading to the criminal behaviour while
allowing the client to serve the sentence in the community
rather than being incarcerated. During the length of this matter
I was able to gather substantial material supporting this type
of sentence through community and health care agencies.
CBC news report from sentencing
CP24 news report from sentencing
Toronto Star article on sentencing
R. v.
Youth - Assault With a Weapon, Assault, Mischief, Uttering
Threats
Client pled guilty to one
charge of Assault Weapon other charges were withdrawn following
negotiation. At the sentencing of the youth crown counsel sought
a short sharp custody sentence and because the offence is listed
as a primary compulsory offence the crown submitted that a DNA
sample of my client should be taken pursuant to the mandatory
provisions of the Criminal Code. During my submissions to the
court I argued that the client had no previous record and was
unlikely to commit future offences and as such the appropriate
sentence was a conditional discharge (not considered a criminal
record). I further argued that notwithstanding that the Criminal
Code made a DNA sample mandatory, that the compulsory provisions
of the criminal code in fact violated the principles of the
Youth Criminal Justice Act which is the primary Act when dealing
with young offenders. On sentence the judge agreed with my
submissions and ordered a Conditional Discharge and refused to
order the DNA sample be taken. Crown counsel later withdrew
their appeal of the DNA decision prior to it being heard at the
upper level court.
R v. F
- Impaired Driving by Marijuana
Client
charged with Impaired Driving, by marijuana. Through cross-examination at trial I was able
to establish that the urine sample given by the client could not prove that he had
recently consumed marijuana. Sample only showed use within the last 6 months.
I was also
able to establish that evidence was insufficient to prove impaired driving.
Following a two day Cross Examination of the Crown's lead
witness, the RCMP Drug Recognition Expert, Crown offered to
accept a plea to a provincial driving violation of Driving
Without Due Care and Attention, as a result the client retained
his drivers' license and only received a minimal fine.
R v. O
- Breach Conditional Sentence
Client
originally received Conditional Sentence. Within the first week the client was cited for
breach and the Conditional Sentence was revoked. I was able to make submissions to court
and convince the sitting Judge that it was appropriate for the Conditional Sentence to be
re-instated allowing my client to return to her home and finish the remainder of the
sentence in the community.
R v. F - Bail Hearing Breach Probation
At a Bail Hearing Crown Counsel was requesting that my client be held in
custody until such time as his trial matter was completed, likely three months later. The
Crown argument was that since my client was homeless the court had no option but to hold
him in custody. At the Bail Hearing I was able to provide evidence through the arresting
officer showing that even though my client was in fact homeless he was easy to find and
not a flight risk. I was able to adduce evidence from the officer that he felt he would be
able to locate my client within 30 minutes if asked to do so. My client was able to avoid
further time in custody and return home
pending his trial.
R. v. H - Possession Controlled Substance, Possession of a
Prohibited Weapon, etc.
This
youth client was charged with Possession of a Prohibited Weapon, Theft Under $5,000,
Possession of a Controlled Substance and Possession of a Weapon Dangerous to a Public
Purpose. Through negotiation with Crown Counsel I was able to secure an agreement to send
the client to Extra-Judicial Measures thereby saving the client from the stigma of a
criminal record.
R v. H - Sexual Interference
Client
was charged with Sexual Interference. Through cross-examination at trial I was able to
show the court that the crown witnesses had very differing stories on key points of
evidence as well as a motive for the witnesses to make up the
allegation due to a previous dispute with my client. My client was acquitted on all charges and one of the crown witnesses was
reprimanded for attempting to interfere with the evidence of another witness.
R. v. R.
- Robbery
Client was charged with
Robbery. Thorough cross-examination of the two alleged victims I
was able to show that their stories were dramatically different.
After 4 days of trial the crown withdrew all charges against my
client without even waiting for the judge to rule.
R. v. Youth
- Cause Disturbance, Fail to Comply, Fail to Appear, Bail
Hearing
Youth client charged with Cause
disturbance, Fail to comply with bail conditions, and Fail to
Appear for Court. Crown counsel refused to consent to release of
the client on conditions. After a four hour bail hearing the
Justice of the Peace accepted my argument that under the youth
criminal justice the court had to release the client under the
circumstances as the Youth Criminal Justice Act does not permit
the court to detain a youth for child protection purposes. The Children's Aid Society had a location for the
client to stay and while she had outstanding charges in three
separate jurisdictions she had no criminal record. Client was
released on her own recognizance.
R. v. P
- Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference
Client was charged with Sexual
Assault and Sexual Interference. Through the course of cross
examining the complainant, the client's ex-wife, it become clear
that the allegations were only made after the client had been
forced to go to family court in order to find where his children
had been taken by the ex-wife. The ex-wife had absconded with
the children to Saskatchewan from Ontario. In cross examination
it was revealed that the complainant was clearly lying on at
least two important details. As a result of the cross
examination crown counsel stayed the charges against the client.
R. v. J.
- Assault Police Officer
Client was charged with
Assaulting a Police Officer. The allegations made by the police
officer were that after stopping my client and requesting that
he exit his vehicle he became aggressive and attempted to strike
the officer and possibly tried to gain control of the officer's
firearm. As a result the client was tazered at least twice. At
trial the two officers provided conflicting testimony on cross
examination and I was able to submit that the Officer who
tazered my client may have misperceived the situation due the
charged atmosphere during the traffic stop. the client was
acquitted on all charges.
R. v. Youth
- Break and Enter
Client charged with Break and
Enter into his high school in the early morning hours following
Halloween. Client was found in the school by security officers
with a broken window on the front doors and the school snack
shop had been broken into as well. Through cross examination of
the security officers it was ascertained that there was another
person in the school that the security officers had seen running
away and that my client had voluntarily walked up to the
security guards. One officer admitted in cross examination that
he had forced my client to the ground and arrested him without
providing him an opportunity to explain why he was at the
school. On direct examination of my client I was able to adduce
the evidence that he had entered the school after hearing glass
breaking and wanted to investigate prior to calling police. The
judge determined that my client's version was possible,
particularly given the security officers testimony on cross
examination. Client was acquitted on all charges.
R. v. C.
- Domestic Assault and Uttering Death Threats
Client had been charged with
assaulting his wife by pushing her against the bed, throwing her
against a mirror, and grabbing her by the throat, as well as
telling her that he was going to kill himself but take her with
him. During cross-examination at trial the complainant wife
admitted that she had been continuing a extra-marital
relationship with a couple and that the client had expressed his
disagreement with the relationship. Complainant admitted that
she and the client were always telling each other that they
would kill another and that the client never actually struck out
at her but rather testified that the alleged actions were
similar to trying to contain an argument or self-defence. During
submissions I argued that that there were no realistic
threats given the history of the couples relationship and that
any reasonable person that was aware of the full nature of the
couples relationship would not have taken the words as a threat. The
court accepted my argument in full and the client was found not guilty on all charges and was able to
continue his career as a cross border truck driver.
R. v. Mc - Murder
Client charged with murder of neighbour. Police arrived on
scene to find client with blood on his hands and neighbour
deceased with apparent trauma to his head. Through negotiation
with Crown counsel client was released on bail allowing him to
return to live with his family while the matter worked it's way
through court. As the matter went forward I was able to show
weaknesses in the case against my client. As a result of
continuing work through negotiation, research and investigation
the charges against the client were dropped in their entirety by
the Crown following the release of the autopsy report.
Link to Newspaper story
These are just a
few brief examples of
some of the criminal cases I have been involved in. For more information on how I may be
able to help you with your criminal matter please call 905 338 0756 for a consultation.
RETURN TO CRIMINAL MATTERS
|
