Notable Cases
R. v. M.M.
Client charged with Accessory After the Fact to Murder. Ms. Gupta presented a strong application to Bail before the Superior Court Judge on the weaknesses of the Crown Attorney’s case on the elements. What started off as a hotly contested Bail Hearing, turned into a win on the elements and Bail plan for the client just days after his arrest. Ms. Gupta has a keen eye to win on Bails— no matter the criminal charges against her clients.
R. v. R.V.
Client charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a loaded firearm discovered pursuant to a search warrant. All charges were stayed.
R v. L.C.L.
Client charged with child pornography. After successful advocacy by Ms. Gupta vigorously fighting for her client, she won the case.
R v. B.T.
Client charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, assault with a weapon, assaults and utter threats. Client was the subject of racial comments and assaults by the police during his arrest. There were several other Charter breaches at the hands of police. After Charter motions were filed by Ms. Gupta, on the eve of trial, all charges were withdrawn by the Crown Attorney on the basis of it not being in the public interest to proceed.
R v A.S.
Child abuse case. Client was wrongfully accused by the mother of the child of tender age. After zealous advocacy, Ms. Gupta’s client was acquitted.
R v H.Z.
Client charged with domestic assaults, threats and several counts of choking. After strategic moves at trial, won the case.
R v S.A.
Client charged with various counts of sexual assault, assault and utter death threats to his x-wife. The x-wife had recordings of various of these offences. The case was in Superior Court for a judge and jury trial. Client's charges were all withdrawn in Superior Court after defence counsel strategically provided alternative evidence to what the complainant alleged, and showed that this was a set up.
R v C.P.
Client charged with 37 counts of 10 armed robberies of various pharmacies throughout the GTA. The amount of disclosure revealed was substantial. Despite that, Ms. Singh argued, though the disclosure and evidence was overwhelming, that the case was not complex. Trial was set to commence mid-January 2024. Defence brought a motion that client's constitutional right to trial within a reasonable time was breached. Defence filed over 100 pages of s. 11(b) motion material. After successful and persuasive argument by Ms. Singh, all 37 counts of robbery and possession of firearm related charges were Stayed due to the client's s. 11(b) rights being breached.
R v M.A.
Client charged with serious charges of voyeurism. It was publicized in the media. The complainant personally provided a victim impact statement to the judge. After a successful argument by counsel Gupta, the client was absolutely discharged, despite the impact this had on the complainant. It was not in the public interest for the client to receive a conviction.
R v C.L.
Client was a lieutenant in the Army who found himself wrongfully accused of child pornography related charges. After several unusual proceedings in court, client was exonerated of all charges.
R v D.H.G.
Client charged with fraud charges. There were substantial pieces of evidence that points towards the client. Nevertheless, after vigorous negotiations, poking holes in the crowns case, all charges were withdrawn.
R v H.M.
Client charged with various drug trafficking charges (cocaine and fentanyl) and possession of firearm charges and discharge firearm (shooting). Police racial profiled client and arrested him on what defence proved was a wrongful arrest. Client was simply walking home in the neighborhood of a shooting that happened moments before his arrest. Police arrested him because he is a black man in the area at the time. A vehicle registered to someone else was found abandoned with the doors wide open as if the suspects ran from the car after a drive-by shooting. Police claimed client was in that car and was the shooter. Won the case after putting the puzzle pieces together proving the police just wanted to make a quick arrest fitting the evidence to match the client based on race and without any evidence to support that arrest. The investigation into client’s arrest failed to do due diligence by obtaining surveillance cameras in the area to show client was not involved.