Notable Cases

R. v. I.I.

Client was charged with assault, assault with a weapon, utter death threats and several breaches of his bail. It is alleged that he went to the complainant’s house armed with a bat along with his co-accused. The complainant and the complainant’s girl-friend were cross-examined at trial. The lies were exposed along with the inconsistencies in their statements to the police. After cross-examination, the Crown withdrew the charges.

R. v. J.H.

Client charged with several breaches of court orders. Defence was a technical breach. Client was found not guilty after trial.

R. v. R.S.

Client was charged with choking and domestic assault. Upon cross- examination of the main crown witness, the complainant refused to finish her evidence in cross-examination. Charges were withdrawn as the crown then had no reasonable prospect of conviction.

R. v. H.I.

Client was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and heroin. After pretrials motions based on Charter breaches under s. 8, 9 and 10(b), drugs were excluded and thus charges dismissed.

R. v. E.F.

Client was charged with aggravated assault, assault with weapon, utter death threats, breach of recognizance, breach of probation. After a three day trial, where each crown witness was attacked and found to be unreliable, the judge found client not guilty of all charges.

R. v. S.M.

Client was charged with pizza pizza robbery with firearm along with two co- accused. Client was acquitted at trial.

R. v. S.R.

Client charged with several counts of trafficking laundry list of drugs. He had prior breaches of court orders and similar items of convictions of related charges on his criminal record accumulated with his prior counsel. After pretrial motions, crown attorney stayed all charges.

R. v. S.M.

Youth client was charged with weapons dangerous, assault, assault police, and utter threat. Complainant was one of the “mall cops” at Yorkdale Shopping Center. After pre-trial motion for Charter breaches under s. 10(b), 8, 9, 7 and Excessive Force, client’s charges were dismissed.

R. v. S.K.

Client charged with assault police after police entered his home for a noise complaint. It was argued that police used Excessive Force and were not in execution of their duty. All charges were stayed thereafter.

R. v. A.F.

Client was charged with a large amount of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. After proving to the Court that the Peel Police breached his constitutional rights, the charges were dismissed based on those breaches.

R. v. T.T.

This was a sexual assault and forcible confinement case. It was a lengthy judge and jury trial. We lost every pretrial motion, every objection. Client had several sexual assaults on his record, which were sanitized at trial. The trial lasted 6 weeks. Cross-examination of the complainant was undermined. After merely three hours of deliberations, the jury found T.T. not guilty.