Notable Cases


Show All Sexual Offences Drugs Violent Offences Weapons Domestic Assault Bail Charter of Rights

R v TF

Client faced with drug and firearm charges including an attempt murder. Police had conducted a wiretap investigation on our client because of a homicide investigation. Police alleged client was involved in a drug trafficking operation and seeking revenge against a rival gang member as retaliation of a robbery of a “trap house”. Clients motor vehicle was the subject of a take-down en route to what police alleged was going to be a murder of the rival gang members. Client was discharged at preliminary hearing on attempt murder based on defence submissions on insufficient intent to make out attempt murder.

R v WR

Client was charged with Possession of Cocaine and Fentanyl for the Purpose of Trafficking as well as charges related to Possession of a Firearm. We argued that his right to be secured against unreasonable search and seizure and his right not to be detained arbitrarily were breached. As a result, the evidence seized by police was excluded and the client was found not guilty at trial.

R v JW

Client was charged with drug possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession of a loaded firearm, and possession of proceeds of crime. We discovered many Charter violations and argued ss. 8, 9, 10(b), 24(2) Charter motions in a blended trial matter with possession of a firearm, possession for the purpose of trafficking, etc. We also alleged racial profiling by police as we believed there was no reasonable and probable grounds to detain the client in the fist instance other than him having been in a poor neighbourhood labelled a ‘hot zone’. Succeeded on the Charter. All evidence excluded and charges stayed.

R v SA

Client charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking and various firearms offences. Police executed a search warrant at the client’s residence. An occupant of the home broke a back window and aimed a gun at several police officers. ‘Call out’ of the occupants and ultimate takedown occurred. Inside the home police found a firearm, large quantity of various drugs and drug paraphernalia. Inside a safe in our clients’ bedroom police also found a loaded handgun magazine. Successfully argued against committal to stand trial: client discharged on all charges based on defence submission of insufficient knowledge and control of all items seized.

R v ZM

Client had been ordered detained after 4 th set of outstanding charges including an attempt murder, serious drug possession and proceeds of crime, breaches of court orders and a domestic assault. Successfully secured the clients release because of a material change in circumstance: namely weaknesses which arose on the Crown’s cases after thorough review of the cases before the court. These frailties ultimately also lead to a reduction of the attempt murder to an aggravated assault. All other sets of charges ultimately withdrawn.

R v SS

Client was charged with over 4 kg of cocaine and was in custody for months without a lawyer. After being referred to us, we concluded through our investigation that the drugs were not actually drugs. We forced the Crown and health Canada to conduct a rush analysis of the “drugs”, which uncovered that the substance was not drugs, but rather a cutting agent which is not illegal to possess. The Crown immediately withdrew the charges against our client.

R v PO

Our client was found in a home with multiple other individuals with a large quantity of drugs and firearms in plain sight. Police arrested everyone in the home and charged them all with possession of the drugs and guns. We argued that mere presence in a location with drugs, and proximity to the illegal items was on its own insufficient to prove that she had possession of the items. After all, just because you are close to an item, it doesn’t mean it is yours. After reviewing our case law, the judge agreed and dismissed the charges against our client.

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.