R v FB
Client was seen leaving a bar with two females, get into a car and drive off. There was no indicia of impairment alleged on clients driving. Police pulled the car over to check for sobriety. Police alleged a strong odour of alcohol coming from the vehicle. Client explain that one of the females who had been drinking had spilled a drink on his shirt which was evidenced by what he was wearing. He did not exhibit any other indicia of impairment. Client refused to provide a breath sample. We successfully argued a s.9 and 10(a) and 10(b) Charter application in this refuse to provide breath sample case. Client testified on both the Charter and trial proper on the above and was found to be credible. After a R v WD assessment in conjunction with the Charter violations and inconsistencies in the two arresting officers testimony advanced, client was acquitted.
R v FN
Client was charged with Mischief over $5000 and Theft Over $5000 as a result of an alleged jewelry store theft. There was damage alleged to a high-end safe, walls, and entrance way. There was surveillance video and some of the jewelry was recovered in a vehicle. The proceedings were stayed against the client as a result of a Charter application because the police breached the client’s rights to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure as well as his rights to counsel.
R v AG
Client was charged impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/ml. He was stopped by police on his way home and breathalyzed. At the station, his readings were 177 mg and 175 mg. We went to trial and argued that the client’s section 7 Charter rights were breached because police pulled him over for no other reason than the colour of his skin. Through diligent disclosure review we discovered racially charged conversations between the police officers and disciplinary reports for one of the officers. The evidence against the client was excluded and he was found not guilty at trial.
R v MC
Client was charged with attempt murder and numerous firearm offences for a shooting that took place at the entrance of a mall where several shots were fired. Client was charged as youth and identification was the main issue. We persistently requested disclosure which we did not receive, and the first trial date had to be adjourned due to state conduct and ongoing investigation to strengthen their case. We successfully argued a Charter s. 11(b) delay application for a youth attempt murder case. All charges stayed at 17 months and 27 days (under the presumptive ceiling).
R v HH
Client’s house was raided by police with a search warrant where over a kilo of cocaine was found. Upon review of the police application for a search warrant, we were able to determine that the police officers had been less than full, fair, and frank in their application, resulting in a violation of our client’s s. 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. We argued that the information the justice relied on to grant the search warrant was structured by the police to mislead. The judge hearing the case agreed, excluded the drugs, and acquitted our client.
R v BN
Client stopped in a vehicle for speeding, although no speed readings were provided, and no speed ticket was issued. Both the client and driver were Black. The car was searched by police and a large quantity of fentanyl was found in the trunk. We filed an application alleging the stop was arbitrary and in violation of the rights guaranteed to our client under s. 9 of the Charter of Rights. We also argued that the stop was influenced by the race of the occupants. Upon requesting disclosure of the radio communications the officer had with the dispatch prior to, and during the initial stop, we were provided with pages of redacted discussions. On the eve of filing an application to remove the redactions which dealt directly with the vehicle stop, the Crown withdrew all charges against both clients.