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 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 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 JB
Client was alleged to have been a passenger in a car that police were tailing, as it was involved in a violent gunpoint kidnapping. Once police stopped the vehicle, the person who was alleged to be our client fled. The police recovered two fully loaded firearms, a large quantity of drugs, and cash. Our client’s fingerprint was found on the inside of the car, and his DNA was found on BOTH of the guns. However, there was also 4 other DNA samples in the gun. We argued that our client was definitely in the contact with the car at some point as a result of the fingerprint, but that it did not follow logically that he was in contact with the car that day. We also argued that this was consistent with his DNA being on the guns, as if he was in the car, his DNA may have been left in the car and innocently transferred to the firearms. After negotiations, the Crown withdrew all charges against our client.
R v FE
Crown theory was that our client and his co-accused were contract killers from out of province hired to execute a high-level member of a well-known organized crime group. Police stopped their vehicle, and through an investigation, were led to a nearby hotel room. Upon searching this room, police found 2 firearms and a silencer, along with a phone which contained hundreds of incriminating messages. The Crown led video evidence of my client accessing the room multiple times with a key card. We argued that there was only one bed and the room was in the name of the co-accused, and therefore the Crown had not established he was only a guest in that room. Client was acquitted of all charges.
R v JK
Client implicated in a robbery and was being followed secretly by police. He had a minor record but was 18 years old. Upon police stopping and searching him, he was found to be in possession of a fully loaded firearm in his Gucci satchel. After a full day bail hearing, he was released to one surety on a curfew bail despite having a criminal record.
R v RB
Client was ordered detained after 5 th set of charges before the court including, assault, assault with a weapon, criminal harassment, fraud, multiple breaches of court orders and domestic assault. Was able to secure the clients release arguing both legal error and material change in circumstances by strengthening the plan of supervision and pointing out the weaknesses in the Crown’s cases against the client. Was able to secure acquittals on two sets of charges at trial, and the Crown ultimately withdrew the rest as all matters related to the same two complainants. Client remains to be free of a criminal record despite the number of matters/charges with which he was faced.