In R. v. J.S-D, my client was charged with possession of a loaded firearm that was found in the trunk of a car he was driving. 2 police officers testified, under oath, that they observed my client walk to the car and place the firearm in the trunk right in front of them. After a Charter application, the trial judge excluded the evidence finding the officers evidence not credible. The trial judge, after intense cross examination, found that the officers testimony was just not believable. The client walked out of the prisoner’s box a free man and continues to have no criminal record. A story about the case can be read by clicking HERE
In R. v. K.C., my client was charged with trafficking cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. At the preliminary hearing my client was discharged of the trafficking cocaine case after the person he was alleged to have sold to testified the man looked very different than my client. At trial, I brought a Charter motion arguing that the Peel officers arrested my client without first doing a proper investigation into who sold the drugs to the other individual. The trial judge found my client’s rights were breached and excluded the cocaine he was found with in his pocket.
In R. v. A.M., my client was charged with robbery. He was detained after a bail hearing (which I did not do) and was going to apply for a bail review as the case looked weak until a Toronto police officer told the Crown and myself that my client was selected in a photo line-up. At the preliminary hearing, we finally received the photo line-up and learned the officer had lied to us both. The Crown withdrew all charges against my client.
In R. v. E.V. (youth), my client, now an adult, was charged with a sexual assault that the complainant said happened over 15 years ago. Despite the fact that the complainant had a horrible record and only made the allegations during a sentencing for a brutal assault against a homosexual male, the Crown decided to proceed to trial. At trial, the complainant was less than forthcoming and several times he swore he was telling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” After hearing my client testify, the judge acquitted my client. Clearly, the complainant was telling lies, whole lies, and nothing but lies. The judge did not believe anything he testified to.
In R. v. V.B. (youth) my client was charged with second degree murder. As his preliminary inquiry was about to end, he faced a possible first degree murder trial due to the evidence of some of the witnesses. Through discussions with the Crown and the prelim judge, my client was able to plead to manslaughter as a youth. His sentence could not total more than 3 years instead of a potential life sentence.
In R. v. K.D., my client was charged with various firearm related charges in a Guns and Gangs Project case. His preliminary inquiry was held with several other individuals accused of similar crimes including participating in a criminal organization. At the end of the preliminary hearing, my client was discharged of several firearm offences despite the other accused being committed to trial on almost all the charges they initially faced.
In R. v. K.C., my client was charged with robbery along with his father. he was alleged to have pepper sprayed several individuals and then robbing them. At his judicial pre-trial, I argued the evidence identifying him was so weak, the continued prosecution of him would be a travesty since he had no sureties and was stuck in jail waiting upon an outcome. The Crown withdrew all charges and he walked out a free man.
In R. v. S.P-W, my client was charged with possession of a firearm. The firearm was found during a cleanup in a Toronto Community Housing apartment building that had been on fire weeks earlier. a 7 day trial was set with a Charter application challenging the authority of the police to enter her apartment as well as the authority of the clean-up crew to enter. The case also had a plethora of possession issues. The Crown stayed the charges on the first day of trial.
In R. v. J.D. (referenced below as well), my client was facing charges of poession of two loaded firearms as well as assault cause bodily harm. Police alleged upon my client’s arrest that he was the owner of the two firearms found in the apartment and that he had caused ear damage to the complainant. Though scheduled for a 3 day preliminary hearing, the case ended suddenly after the testimony of the main witness for the Crown (the complainant). My client’s charges were stayed and his restrictive bail ended. He is now able to resume his music career. For his latest video click here: http://youtu.be/dg55SBMpV-o
In R. v. B.R-F, my client was brought before a Justice of the Peace for a bail hearing on the charges of possession of a loaded firearm. The Crown alleged he possessed this loaded firearm in his motor vehicle (they allege it was in the centre console) and that he was a drug dealer and associate of an alleged gang called the 5 Point Generals. Despite these allegations, the Justice of the Peace applied the law and sought fit to release my client on a house arrest bail.
In R. v. J.D. my client was before a Justice of the Peace for a bail hearing accused of possessing two loaded firearms as well as domestic assault. My client was released after a contested bail hearing where the Crown sought his detention. In R. v. H.S., my client was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. The cocaine was found in a home jointly owned with a family member. Police observed him leaving the home the day of the arrest but not prior. After over 2 years of moving through the justice system, my client was found not guilty after a trial in Superior court.
In R. v. K.C, my client was charged with trafficking cocaine. My client was followed by police based on a “tip” from a confidential source. The police alleged they observed my client walk up to a car and saw the car drive off soon after. The police stopped the vehicle and arrested the occupants who had crack cocaine. Therefore, they charged my client with trafficking. At his preliminary hearing the charge was discharged after the occupants of the vehicle advised the court that my client was not the man who sold drugs to them that day.
In R. v. C.O., my client was charged with robbery with a firearm, aggravated assault, and wearing a facemask stemming from a violent home invasion robbery in Toronto. 2 masked individuals entered the apartment, tied the resident up and ransacked the apartment looking for cash. The robbery lasted anywhere from 3 to 5 hours. Upon leaving the residence, one individual left behind 2 blood-soaked gloves. Upon DNA analysis, it was determined that the blood on the gloves was the homeowner’s. Along with his blood was one other profile on one glove and 2 profiles on the other glove. One profile matched my client. Upon arrest, my client asked to call his criminal lawyer in Toronto. My client was acquitted based on the fact that the DNA expert called to testify at trial could not determine when my client’s DNA was left on the glove. There were too many possibilities as to how a person’s DNA can be left on clothing and to convict on that evidence alone would be dangerous. After more than 2 years in custody my client walked out of the box and outside the courthouse a free man.
In R. v. L.S., my client was charged with possession of a loaded firearm. He was represented at trial by another lawyer and asked that I assist him with his sentencing after he was found guilty by a judge in the Superior Court of Justice. My client was found by the police inside an apartment of another individual during the execution of a search warrant. The judge found that my client had a firearm in his hand while posing for a webcam on a laptop computer. Upon entry by the police, the judge found that he dropped the firearm and went down to the floor. At his sentencing hearing, I along with Dirk Derstine, argued that the mandatory minimum sentence of three years was unconstitutional. The judge agreed, struck down the legislation, and sentenced my client to a further 5 months jail to be served in his home (after giving him 7 months credit for time spent in jail). The judgement, while binding on the Ontario Court of Justice, it is highly persuasive in the Superior Court and throughout Canada.
In R. v. J.T. my client was charged with Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle after getting into an accident on the highway. Police alleged my client was speeding and weaving through multiple lanes eventually coming into contact with another vehicle. After cross-examining the driver of the other vehicle and the eye-witnesses, my client was acquitted as it was not clear who was weaving in traffic leaving the judge with a reasonable doubt.
In R. v. J.P. and R.M, my client (J.P.) was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking as well as possession of cocaine and possesion of proceeds of crime. J.P. was driving the car of R.M. who was in the passenger seat. A Toronto police sergeant testified that she saw the car run a stop sign. She pulled the car over and requested police backup to assist in investigating the four black males in the vehicle. 4 officers attended for the Highway Traffic Act violation. The police alleged the owner of the vehicle invited them to impound the car since it was not insured instead of letting him have it towed. They used this excuse to search the car. In the car, underneath the gear shift the sergeant found a baggie with crack and powder cocaine. She alleged a part of the baggie was sticking out with some crack cocaine in it (odd since the entire reason to hide the drugs would be so that it was not visible). After attending the scene and seeing that there was no stop sign where the sergeant testified at the preliminary hearing that they ran one, I was fully prepared to prove to the court that the officer was untruthful at the preliminary hearing. Since the preliminary hearing, the officer obviously attended the scene again and noticed her predicament and changed her testimony at trial. Unfortunately for her, she failed to cover all her bases. Another officer testified that the sergeant told him she stopped the vehicle because she felt the dcar was trying to evade her. NOT a highway Traffic Act offence. The trial judge granted my motion for a directed verdict agreeing that there was absolutely no evidence that my client knew there were drugs in the car. I never had to address the Charter violations. My client was acquitted of all charges.
In R. v. C.D. et. al, my client was charged with first degree murder. His charge was withdrawn on the fifrth day of the preliminary hearing. (Details to follow upon the completion of the case for the other parties).
In R. v. P.P. my client was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking as well as marijuana. He was investigated outside a high-rise apartment building by community response police officers in Toronto. There was no good reason to nvestigate my client other than the fact the police allege the people he was with went into the building when they saw the police and he stayed behind. Rather than investigate the males who fled, they investigated my client and said they found marijuana and crack cocaine. Upon filing a Charter application alleging the police acted unconstitutionally in stopping, talking to, and searching my client, the Crown agreed to ask the court to stay the proceedings.
In R. v. W.A. and S.M., my clients, two youths, were charged with robbery while armed with a firearm. They were accused of being involved in a robbery while in another individual’s vehicle. After a judicial pre-trial, both their charges were withdrawn after the many frailties in the evidence in the case were pointed out.
In R. v. C.J-B, my client was charged with possession of a firearm and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. 3 Toronto police officers testified they saw my client toss an object (2 described it as a firearm) on the ground while chasing him. A video of part of the chase did not depict the dropping of the gun. The police described the dropping of the gun as just out of the camera range. My client was acquitted after it was clear to the trial judge that two of the officers could not have seen what they testified under oath about. The third officer, the one closest to my client, was also inconsistent about the dropping of the firearm. After 16 months in custody awaiting his trial, he stepped out of custody and was able to return home.
In R. v. F.A., my client, along with two others, was charged with possession of 2 firearms and possession of a stolen vehicle. He was in the driver’s seat of a motor vehice with a front passenger and a back seat passenger. A firearm was found underneath the passenger seat and in a back pack in the back seat. After a trial with a jury, my client as acquitted of all charges. Each co-accused was found guilty of one of the firearms found in the motor vehicle.
In R. v. W.P., my client was charged with possession of a Luger firearm as well as cocaine. He was approached by police officers while in a park along with 4 other males. One officer testified she saw a male wearing black with a red stripe on the sleeve with his hand in a garbage. Another officer later found a gun in the garbage. My client was arrested and held without bail. At trial, he was wearing the same clothing as the day he was arreested. Despite the police only charging my client with possession of the hand gun, it was made clear after the observation officer testified about the red stripe on the sleeve that my client was not the one with his hand in the garbage. I entered into evidence pictures of the other 4 males (taken on the day of my client’s arrest) which clearly showed an individual with red stripes on his sleeve. Therefore, he was found not guilty on all the firearm related charges he was facing.
In R. v. D.S., my client, along with a co-accused, was charged with a home invasion robbery in Brampton where an individual was stabbed with a knife.A cell phone stolen during the robbery was traced via GPS satellites to a residential area. One of the residents in the home that was robbed knew someone who lived near the area where the GPS satellite was tracked. Based on very limited information, a warrant was sought by a detective. During the execution of the warrant, my client walked up to the home and was arrested along with an individual inside the home. At trial, a Charte rchallenge was brought with respect to grossly misleading information in the warrant as well as inaccurate conclusions made by the detective. During cross-examination, the detective admitted to several factual inaccuracies and errors that he made while drafting the warrant. Once the trial judge extracted all the errors and inaccuracies, he found that there was not enough information left in the warrant to allow for its execution. My client, and the co-accused were found not guilty of all charges.
In R. v. C.M. my client was charged along with two others with having multiple firearms in a motor vehicle. My client was driving a motor vehicle in which two firearms were located upon a proactive police vehicle stop and search. After intesive cross-examinations of the main officers in the case, submissions were made as to why my client should not have to face a trial in this case. The judge agreed and my client was not comitted for trial.
In R. v. J.D., my client was charged with possession of a loaded firearm and possessing the firearm contrary to a prohibition order. He was alleged to have thrown a firearm while running from the police when they sought to investigate him for a robbery that had occurred nearby. The police officers testified that he ran in a manner consistent with an individual armed with a firearm (though later admitted during cross examination that he might have been holding his pants up). One officer testified he saw my client throw an item into an area and heard the noise of metal on concrete. In cross examination he admitted to only seeing an outstretched arm and did not see anything in the air. The noise he heard might have been the sound of another officer’s baton hitting the ground. The trial judge found that it was improbable that an officer would not see the firearm in the air if it was thrown. She found that while my client probably threw the item, she had a reasonable doubt and therefore acquitted him of all charges.
In R. v. M.T. my client was charged with participating in a criminal organization as well as possession of a firearm. He was detained after a bail hearing. I successfully brought an application to have him released n bail in the Superior Court while awaiting the preliminary hearing and trial.
In R. v. K.O., my client was charged with trafficking in crack cocaine as well as possession of proceeds of crime. He was alleged to have sold $40 worth of crack cocaine to an undercover officer after the officer was led to him by 2 co-accused. K.O. was discharged at the preliminary inquiry after argument was made that the Crown failed to call the proper evidence to prove my client was in fact the individual who sold crack to the undercover officer. He did not have the marked police buy money on him a mere minutes after the alleged drug transaction took place.
In R. v. T.O., my client, who was a young person, was charged with robbery with a firearm x3 and possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. He was charged with robbing 3 individuals of a pound of marijuana while armed with a firearm. The entire robbery was caught on videotape but the identity of the robber was not clear on any of the cameras to anyone except a guard who patrolled the building where my client lived. Through cross-examination, it was determined that his credibility and ability to identify my client were flawed. Upon arrest of my client, crack cocaine was found on a shelf beside my client’s still valid driver’s license. The crack cocaine was on top of a shelf, near the ceiling. The trial judge found that even if he were to believe the license was beside the crack cocaine, he still could not find that my client was in possesion of the crack cocaine. My client was acquitted of all charges.
In R. v. J.M. my client was charged with production of marijuana and other drug related charges. Though initialy seeking a jail sentence, after several lengthy discussions in which it was pointed out that the police violated my clients Charter rights in several different ways, the Crown agreed to withdraw all the charges.
In R. v. E.P. my client was charged with obstructing police and aiding an individual to escape lawful custody. She was alleged to have helped a woman escape from police when the woman provided what was alleged to have been a false name to the officers. My client was acquitted of all charges.
In R. v. P.P., my client was charged with failing to comply with her bail condition in a case where she is alleged to have stabbed a man with a samurai sword. While at court for her preliminary hearing, the complainant told police that she threatened him. She was subsequently arrested. At trial, after a vigorous cross examination of the complainant, and though my client did not testify, the Judge stated that he could not find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a million years. The Judge stated that I “sliced and diced” the complainant resulting in a total lack of credibility. She was found Not Guilty.
In R. v. P.F. my client was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of marijuana. A video showed the client exiting an elevator and being swarmed by three police officers. At the preliminary hearing, during cross examination by me, one
Toronto police officer testified he felt it would be negligent not to search this individual despite the individual doing nothing wrong or suspicious. The charges were eventually withdrawn by the Federal prosecutor in the Superior Court for obvious breaches of my client’s Charter rights.
In R. v. K.C. my client was charged with trafficking cocaine to an undercover officer. His charges were dismissed after I successfully argued against a Crown motion to introduce certain evidence against my client at the preliminary hearing.
In R. v. C.W., my client was charged with firearm related offences including possession of a loaded firearm and being in a motor vehicle knowing a firearm was in the vehicle. After spending 7 months in jail awaiting his preliminary hearing, my client stepped out of the prisoner’s box a free man after all charges were dismissed on the second day of the preliminary inquiry.
In R. v. W.M., my client was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. A police officer testified he specifically saw my client place the crack cocaine under a chair he was sitting on. Through careful cross-examination of this officer and other officers on the scene, it was established that this officer must have been lying. My client was found not guilty by a jury.
In R. v. I.A., my client was charged with possession of a loaded firearm. He was detained after a foot pursuit in which a police officer witnessed my client throw an object over a fence. After detaining my client, the officer searched the area and found a firearm. There were a few other individuals running at the same time as my client. One of them was found with cocaine and a firearm and plead guilty. Another was found with cocaine and was found guilty after a trial. My client was found not guilty of possessing the firearm after the trial judge concluded that it was possible that one of the other individuals who were running from the police threw the firearm and that my client may have thrown a different object that was not found by the police.
In R. v. J.W., my client was charged with possession of over 5 ounces of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. The cocaine was found inside the motor vehicle he was driving. I successfully challenged the legality of the motor vehicle being stopped by police. The judge found my client’s Charter rights were violated and excluded all the evidence seized by police.
In R. v. J.D., my client was charged with possession of a firearm, as well as being an occupant of a motor vehicle knowing there was a firearm inside it. He was found not guilty by a jury.
In R. v. K.S., my client was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime. He was detained by police who alleged they were conducting Trespass to Property Act investigations. After vigorous cross-examination of the police officers, the trial judge disbelieved one of the officers and found that my client’s Charter rights had been breached. The evidence was excluded and the charges were dismissed.
R. v. O.A. – Client was found Not Guilty by a jury for Trafficking in Cocaine, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Cocaine, and Possession of Proceeds of Crime.
R. v. M.C. – Charged with trafficking in cocaine, the charge was withdrawn after two unsuccessful attempts to prosecute my client. Both jury trials ended with a hung jury.
R. v. J. W-A. – Client was found Not Guilty by Vaillancourt, J. of Obstruct Police, Assault Police, and Possession of Property Obtained by Crime after a successful Charter Application. It was alleged that the client’s Charter rights were violated when he was detained and investigated by members of the T.A.V.I.S. police squad.
R. v. S.L., A.L., L.W., K.L., R.E., T.O. (youth) – All were charged in the Project Fusion case with counts ranging from participating in a criminal organization to possession of a firearm and possession of large amounts of cocaine. Despite the Crown opposing bail on some, they were all released on bail.
R. v. J.N. – Client charged with possession of cocaine and marijuana. The Charges were Stayed after I brought a Charter motion at trial for unreasonable delay in bringing the matter to trial.
R. v. C.T. – Charge of possession of cocaine stayed by Justice Sheppard.
R.v. R.L. – Client was acquitted by Justice Moore after a trial for Assaulting a Police Officer with the Intent to Resist Arrest.
R. v. S.H. – Charged with a Domestic Assault and Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle, the client was acquitted before Justice Merenda.
R. v. A.G. – Client was acquitted of Assaulting a Police Officer with the Intent to Resist Arrest, and Escape Lawful Custody.
R. v. S.F. – Client was found not guilty by Justice Ray for Assault with a Weapon, threatening Death, and Possessing a Weapon for a Purpose Dangerous to the Public.
R. v. J.F. – Client acquitted of Assault by Justice Kerr.
In R. v. T.H., my client was found in possession of over 11 grams of crack cocaine. Though he was found guilty after trial, he was only found guilty of simple possession despite the large amount of drugs found in his pockets along with over $1,100 in cash. As a result, the sentence he received was much lighter than it would have been had he been found guilty of possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.
R. v. S.D. – Charged with multiple counts of conspiracy to commit indictable offences and multiple fraud over $5000, ALL her charges were withdrawn prior to a preliminary hearing. She was charged along with many others with organizing and participating in a mail fraud organization.
R. v. J.S-V. – Charged with careless storage of ammunition, possession of cocaine and other drugs. All charges were withdrawn after discussing with the Crown the reasonable prospect of conviction.
R. v. T.H. – Charges of trafficking cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking were withdrawn by the Crown after a pre-trial was done with me due to no reasonable prospect of conviction due to the police actions violating my client’s Charter rights.
R. v. B.C. – His charge of threatening death was withdrawn on the date of trial.
R. v. K.A-B – Charges of fraudulent use of a credit card and using a credit card that was not his were withdrawn on the date of trial.
R. v. R.D. – Charge of breach probation was withdrawn on the date of trial.
R. v. M.T. – Charge of Theft Under $5000 was withdrawn after successfully completing diversion.
R. v. T.C. (youth) – Charge of Theft Under $5000 was withdrawn after successful completion of diversion.
R. v. M.D. – His charge of Mischief Under was withdrawn on the date of trial. The Crown would not agree to withdraw prior to trial.
R. v. K.F. (youth) – Charge of Robbery withdrawn on day of trial.
R. v. M.C. – Charged with possession of cocaine and marijuana and assault resist arrest, his charges were withdrawn prior to trial after the client completed steps to divert his charges.
In R. v. S.T, my client was charged with several counts of robbery on different dates. At his preliminary inquiry, several charges were withdrawn by the Crown after lengthy discussions with me. Despite the Crown being intent on proceeding on one count, that count was withdrawn a few months later in the Superior Court.
R. v. D.A.(youth) – The client was charged with Assault x2, Assault with a Weapon, and Possession of a Weapon. ALL charges were withdrawn on the day of trial.
R. v. L.B. (youth) – His charge of Fail to Comply with an Undertaking was withdrawn on the day of trial.
R. v. E.G. – His charge of Fail to Comply with a Recognizance was withdrawn on the day of trial.
R. v. M.H. – His charge of Assault was withdrawn on the day of trial
R. v. L.B. (youth) – His charge of Robbery was withdrawn on the day of trial after I filed a Charter Application for unreasonable delay in bringing the case to trial.
R. v. S.P. (youth) – Charge of Assault and Fail to Comply was withdrawn on the day of trial.
R. v. B.M. – Charge of Weapons Dangerous was withdrawn on the day of trial.
R. v. V.B. – Charge of Robbery x2 was withdrawn by the Crown
R. v. L.D. – Charge of Assault was withdrawn on the day of trial
R. v. B.D. – Charge of Assault was withdrawn on the day of trial.
R. v. T.M. – Charge of Possession of Cocaine was withdrawn on the day of trial.
R. v. M.M. – Charges of Criminal Harassment, and Fail to Comply x2 were withdrawn on the day of trial in Superior Court of Justice.
R. v. R. O-M. – Charge of Fail to Appear was withdrawn on the day of trial.
R. v. K.S. – Charges of Possession of Property Obtained by Crime with a value Over $5000 and Theft Over $5000 were withdrawn on the day of trial.
R. v. T.O. (youth) – Charge of Uttering a Threat to Cause Bodily Harm was withdrawn on the day of trial.