Recent successes

R. v. K.S.- The defendant was charged with resisting arresting and assaulting a peace officer. We brought a number of applications to exclude evidence including an application that the officers had used excessive force in arresting the defendant and that the officers had breached the defendant’s rights by destroying a crucial piece of evidence. We were able to convince the prosecutor that their case was fatally flawed and the charges were withdrawn after our client made a charitable donation.

R. v. P.H.- The defendant was charged with numerous offences including assaulting a peace officer, escaping lawful custody, and breaches of probation. The defendant had a lengthy criminal record and the prosecutor was seeking significant jail time. We were able to put together compelling sentencing material and we convinced the court that the defendant should be permitted to serve his sentence in the community (by way of a conditional sentence order).

R. v. P.H.- The defendant breached his conditional sentence order on four separate occasions. Had any of the breaches been proven, the defendant would likely have been ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence in jail. On each occasion we were able to either convince the prosecutor to not proceed with the breach hearing, or were able to show the court that the prosecutor could not prove that the defendant breached to order. As a result, all of the allegations were either withdrawn or dismissed and the defendant was able to serve his sentence at home.

R. v. P.H.- The defendant was arrested for a number of offences and was in possession of a large amount of money. The officers seized the money as they believed it was the proceeds from a robbery. Even though the officers could not prove that the defendant committed the robbery and could not link the money to any of the defendant’s current charges, the officer refused to return the money. We brought an application before the court to force the police to return the money. The judge agreed with our argument and the money was returned.

R. v. J.I.- The defendant was charged with fraud. The prosecutor was seeking significant jail time as the frauds happened over a lengthy period of time and were for a substantial amount of money. We were able to put together sentencing material to convince the court to sentence the defendant to a conditional sentence order. The defendant was only required to pay back a portion of the money.

R. v. J.M.- The defendant was charged with fraud. At trial, we argued that based on the facts of the case, the defendant could not be convicted of the offence. The argument was based on a technical argument in the case law which set out what evidence must be called in order to prove the fraud. We argued that an important piece of evidence was lacking from the prosecutor’s case. The Judge agreed with our argument and the defendant was acquitted.

R. v. T.C.- The defendant was charged with drug offences. Had he been convicted of the offence it would have been impossible for him to attend school in the United Stated. We were able to convince the prosecutor to withdraw the charge after the client performed some community service work.

R. v. W.Z.- The defendant was charged with sexual assault. On cross-examination, we got the complainant to admit that she consented to the sexual act. As a result of this admission, not only were the charges dismissed against the defendant, but they were also dismissed against his co-accused (who was represented by another lawyer).

R. v. C.S.- The defendant was charged with sexual assault. We were able to convince the court that the client’s statement was not made voluntarily and it was therefore excluded. On cross-examination, the complainants admitted that they were too intoxicated to remember the evening and they backed away from the statements they had made to the police. As a result, the defendant was acquitted.

R. v. S.R.- The defendant was charged with aggravated assault. The case law outlines that individuals who are charged with aggravated assault face federal jail time. We were able to convince the prosecutor to permit our client to plead to a lesser offence and we were able to convince the sentencing judge that the defendant should be able to serve her sentence in the community.

R. v. A.C.- The defendant’s motorcycle was seized by the police when they executed a narcotics warrant. We prepared material to force the police to return the motorcycle. Ultimately the prosecutor consented to returning the vehicle.

R. v. K.R.- The defendant was charged with a break and enter. He provided a statement to the police admitting to dozens of additional B&Es. The prosecutor charged the defendant with all of the B&Es. We were able to convince the prosecutor that the statement was inadmissible and the defendant received probation for the one B&E.

R. v. W.C.- The defendant was charged with impaired driving and the police seized money that was inside his vehicle. The police and the prosecutor did not want to return the money. We were able to convince the Crown that they could not prove that the money was the proceeds of a criminal offence and it was returned to the defendant.

R. v. B.A.- The defendant was charged with sexual assault. The matter proceeded to trial where the complainant was cross-examined and the defendant testified. The judge agreed with our legal argument that the defendant’s testimony should be preferred over the complainant’s testimony and that therefore there was insufficient evidence to convict the defendant. The judge agreed and the defendant was acquitted.

R. v. D.L.- The defendant was charged with robbery. He was facing a jail term as a taxi driver had been robbed. The main witness for the prosecutor had participated in the robbery and was going to testify that the defendant was involved. We were able to convince the prosecutor that the witness’ testimony would probably not survive cross-examination. The charge was withdrawn after the client performed some community service work.