Notable Cases
R. v. R.B.
Client was charged with multiple counts of rape (sexual assault). We conducted a lengthy trial where the complainant was cross-examined at length. After which, R.B. was acquitted of all charges.
R. v. Ab.W.
Charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking and firearm possession charges. After successful Garofoli application, all contraband excluded, thus client walked as a free man.
R. v. O.D.H.
Client was charged with a Homicide along with two other co-accused. It was alleged that O.D.H. stabbed the victim multiple times in a vehicle with the two co- accused. Surveillance tracked the movements of defendants. There were many eye- witnesses to murder. Client was seen at a convenience store buying the murder weapon. After several pretrial motions, client charges were stayed.
R. v. I.B.
Client is a prominent physician in the GTA. He was charged with assaulting his 12-year-old daughter. After several pretrial with the crown and convincing arguments of the motive behind the allegation and weakness in the crowns case, the crown attorney withdrew the charge prior to the first court date.
R. v. K.P.
Client was charged with threatening death, several counts of assault against the complainant, assault police and obstruct peace officer. After several days of cross- examination of the crown witnesses and police officers, client was found not guilty.
R. v. K.D.
Client was charged with Attempt Murder. The allegations of the Attempt Murder was caught on surveillance at local Toronto bar. There were two other co- accused involved. After a preliminary inquiry, K.D. was discharged and all charges were dropped.
R. v. H.A.
Client was charged with gang sexual assault. After a lengthy trial, H.A. was acquitted with the judge saying: “I know your client did it, but based on the evidence you presented to this Court, I can not find him guilty.”
R. v. J.R.
Client was charged with armed robbery. Client and his two co-accused was seen on surveillance entering a restaurant. One of the three pulls what looks like a firearm on the two complainants. Another was alleged to have grabbed the complainant’s gold chain. Several counts of utter death threats were alleged as well. After several pretrials, crown reduced the charge with assault and assault with weapon. Trial was set. Complainants did not want to testify. Crown pushing for a plead of guilt. Other two co-accused agreed. Ms. Gupta did not agree. Ms. Gupta argued for outright withdrawal. All charges were withdrawn on the day of trial.
R. v. D.S.
Client was charged with a fail to appear count. He was previously acquitted with the underlying charge of possession of firearm related charges. The crown attorney lost the information and relayed the information months later. It was after the statutory limitation period and we did not consent to waive the limitation period. We proceeded to set a preliminary inquiry with a judge and jury trial for a fail to appear count. The crown attorney was after Ms. Gupta’s client so proceeded with the election without any indication to drop the charge. We appeared for the preliminary inquiry. The judge said: “Are we really doing this?” Crown responded “Yes, Your Honor.” After client was arraigned, cross-examination of the witnesses began. Crown was in a position of no prospect of conviction and withdrew the charge.
R. v. E.C.
Client was charged with trafficking cocaine and heroin. There were several informations before the Courts for related such charges. We set each of them for a total of 11 trials in the Bradford jurisdiction. Outside judges had to be cycled in to set these trials. After completion of one trial for one of the informations, client was found not guilty. All other charges were subsequently withdrawn by the crown attorney.
R. v. H.A.
Client was charged with Uber Robbery. After several days of cross-examination and showing that there were serious reasonable doubt in the allegations, client was acquitted.
R v. A.S.
Client was charged with breaching his bail conditions. He was found and arrested outside the complainant’s house, which he was prohibited from being at. At trial, Ms. Gupta had gone to the crime scene. Armed with that knowledge, she successfully cross-examined the police witnesses. Crown could not prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and client was found not guilty.