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 JB
Client charged with human trafficking related offences. He maintained his innocence from the beginning. Despite him having a very minor criminal , record, he was ordered detained at two separate bail hearings. He retained us to conduct a third bail hearing. After reviewing the file, we launched an attack on the credibility of the witness. We were able to find other cases in which the complainant had falsely accused an individual of trafficking and relied on those for the bail. The client was released immediately to is family and four kids, and ultimately acquitted of human trafficking.
R v DD
Client was charged with sexually assaulting his spouse with whom he was separated and going through a nasty divorce. There were two young children involved. DD, who was a general surgeon, had moved on but still wished to maintain contact with the children and co-parent. The evidence outlined that both DD and his spouse were still intimate with each other occasionally. Upon DD filing for full custody of his children, his spouse complained to police that DD had raped her. We were able to use the existence of family court documents to skillfully cross-examine the spouse resulting in a number of unexplained inconsistencies, resulting in an acquittal for the client.
R v AG
Client charged with sexually assaulting a woman he met at a Toronto night club. There were text messages sent by her to him the next day stating that she felt guilty about what happened because she had a boyfriend and had cheated on him. The boyfriend found out, confronted her, and then sex assault was reported. Client maintained his innocence and argued that the sexual intercourse was consensual. At trial, the Crown argued that client was not entitled to use text messages as part of his defence. After a hotly contested Application, the judge permitted the use of these message and concluded that she did consent, resulting in an acquittal of the client. Crown was seeking a 3 to 4 year sentence if client was found guilty.