Notable Cases

OUR JOB IS TO MAKE THE PROSECUTOR PROVE GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Featured Case

R v AK

Client charged with Attempt Murder in a brutal stabbing. He made admissions to police and was caught at the scene. The client was assessed by expert psychiatrists from both the Crown and Defence. During the trial we were able to discredit some of the findings presented by the Crown’s expert and create enough doubt about her assessment to secure a Not Criminal Responsible verdict for our client.


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

R v AK

Client charged with Attempt Murder in a brutal stabbing. He made admissions to police and was caught at the scene. The client was assessed by expert psychiatrists from both the Crown and Defence. During the trial we were able to discredit some of the findings presented by the Crown’s expert and create enough doubt about her assessment to secure a Not Criminal Responsible verdict for our client.

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 AH

Client was charged with Robbery, Break and Enter with Intent, Theft of a Motor Vehicle, Assault with a Deadly Weapon, and Assault Causing Bodily Harm. The Crown had video surveillance and witness statements. At the Crown Pre-Trial we were able to point a long list of issues related to the surveillance and the motive of the witnesses. At the Judicial Pre-Trial, the Judge agreed with the Defence’s position and encouraged the Crown not to proceed with these charges. At the client’s next court date, all of the charges were withdrawn.

R v JM

Client was charged with a serious robbery using a firearm. He was not charged at the scene. Client was later identified by police and charged. Clients girlfriend testified as a surety at his bail hearing conducted by duty counsel and indicated that he could not have been the suspect as they were together out of town a significant distance away from the robbery. Justice of Peace detained the client. We successfully got clients robbery and fail to comply charges withdrawn before a preliminary hearing by filing an alibi defence and responding materials to Nikolovsky evidence tendered by Crown. Our position remained that there were no significant similarities other than skin colour tying our client to the suspect of the robbery. Strategic choice made to proceed in this fashion given clients in custody status.

R v SF

Client was charged with Aggravated Assault for allegedly beating his father-in-law with a baseball bat as well as historic assaults on the same Complainant. At trial we cross- examined the Complainant for over two days regarding the incidents he alleged had occurred. The Complainant finally admitted that the historic assaults were consensual fights. The Complainant’s credibility created doubt about his version of events regarding the Aggravated Assault and the client was found not guilty.

R v KA

Client was charged with discharging a firearm with intent in a gang related shooting over territory. Matter proceed by way of a judge and jury trial. Successfully argued adjournment application due to late disclosure. Successfully argued for Parks challenge cause application to eliminate partial juries based on race. After jury selection proceeded to pre-trial motions. Argued exclusion of evidence application regarding shell casings and firearms found inside the accused dwelling after a search warrant execution; unsuccessful. Some witness testimony put our client at the scene of the shooting. One video surveillance footage showed a man wearing gray pants and orange insignia on his shoes running from the scene. One witness had also described the shooter to have been wearing this exact outfit. We successfully argued an alternate suspect application. Serious issue for the Crown’s case; trial proper did not proceed, all charges withdrawn.

R v EG

Client was charged with numerous counts related to possession of a firearm and Discharge with Intent. The charges resulted from a gang shooting between rival members. There was surrounding surveillance video and the gun was recovered on the scene. Client was found not guilty on all counts after a lengthy trial.

R v MK

Client was charged with an allegation of a vicious sexual assault which took place in the front passenger seat of his car. The complainant had alleged the client having sexually assaulted her 5 times and ejaculating each time within the span of 20 minutes. The complainant had made similar allegations as against a different accused whom we had coincidentally represented and for whom we secured an acquittal. Successfully argued s.276 application mid preliminary hearing at a voir dire to bring in the similarities of the prior allegation. Client was committed to stand trial. Matter scheduled for a Judge and Jury trial. Successfully argued a third-party records application pertaining to the complainant’s prior allegation of sexual assault during pre-trial motions. Before trial the Crown offered the client a peace bond. Defence refused and opted to proceed with trial. The Crown did not proceed to trial and stayed all charges.

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.