Client contacted by police and advised of warrant for her arrest for an alleged theft that was caught on camera – Arranged for Client to surrender herself to police – At bail hearing Crown agrees to withdraw charge and client released unconditionally – No Criminal Record.

Drugs and stolen property found in client’s apartment after police search apartment when responding to an unrelated call – Crown agreed that search of apartment was illegal and a breach of Client’s right under section 8 of the Charter to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Crown agreed that there was a good chance evidence of drugs and stolen property would be excluded at trial – All Charges withdrawn by Crown after client completes some community service – No Criminal Record.

My client was charged with Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample at the side of the road.  The police stopped M.F.’s vehicle after seeing it mount the curb as it made a turn.  The police could smell alcohol on my client’s breath and demanded that he do a roadside breath test.  My client made several attempts to provide a sample but none registered and the officer thought my client was screwing around and arrested him for Refuse.  He was then taken to the police station where the police held him for several hours because they thought he was being belligerent.  Prior to the trial, I filed an Charter application alleging that my client’s right to be free from arbitrary detention was violated because there was no need for him to be taken to the police station and held for several hours.  On the morning of trial, I spoke to the Crown who decided not to oppose my application and stayed the charge against my client.  For my client, this result meant the same thing as an acquittal or a withdrawal of the charge.

My client was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The police observed my client driving on the 401 for several minutes and video recorded it with a camera installed in their police cruiser. R.J., who had difficulty understanding English was eventually stopped and immediately arrested for Impaired Driving. He was taken to the police station where he blew over the legal limit and was additionally charged with Over 80. I filed a Charter application alleging that my client’s right to counsel was violated as he was not put in touch with a lawyer who could speak his language. After I completed my cross-examinations of the investigating officers, I established that the police were clearly having difficulty communicating with my client and that he was not communicated his rights in a way he could properly understand. My cross-examination of the arresting officer also revealed that his recollection of what had occurred that night was very limited. As a result, the Crown agreed to accept a plea to Careless Driving under the HTA instead of proceeding with the drinking and driving charges. My client was more than happy to take the deal.

My client was charged with Dangerous Driving and Flight from Police.  It was alleged that N.M. was riding a motor cycle at more than 190 km/hr on the 404 and that when a police cruiser attempted to pull him over at a stop light on an exit ramp, N.M., took off at extremely high speeds and got away.  The police got the license plate of the bike and interviewed the registered owner who claimed that my client was in possession of the bike at the time of the incident and that my client had confessed to him everything that the police alleged had occurred.  At trial, after my cross-examination of the owner of the bike, I exposed several inconsistencies between what the witness had told the police in a video recorded interview and his testimony at trial.  Ultimately the Crown invited the judge to dismiss the charges against my client.

The police received a call regarding a severely damaged vehicle located at the side of a quite stretch of highway, partially in a live lane.  When police arrive, they found D.B alone in the vehicle and fast asleep in the passenger seat.  The police could see that my client was obviously intoxicated and arrested him for Impaired Care or Control.  He was taken to the police station where he was charged with Over 80 as well after blowing well over the legal limit. At trial I successfully argued that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that my client was in care or control of the vehicle and he was acquitted.

F.M. contacted me after receiving a call from police who were investigating an incident in which a vehicle registered in his name hit a parked car late at night.  Both vehicles sustained serious damage and F.M.’s vehicle was then driven to his home.  The police attended the home shortly after the accident occurred and knocked on the door but no one answered.  They suspected that F.M. had been driving impaired and had not remained on the scene of the accident in order to avoid being charged.  The following day, I attended the police station with my client and the police tried to get him to give a statement.  My client exercised his right to silence and the police subsequently charged him with Failing to Remain at the Scene of a Collision (7 demerit points), Careless Driving (6 demerit points) and Operate Unsafe Motor Vehicle, all under the Highway Traffic Act.  At Provincial Offences Court, I convinced the prosecutor that they would have a very difficult time proving that my client was the driver of the vehicle.  The prosecutor ultimately agreed to withdraw the Fail to Remain and the Careless Driving and my client entered a guilty plea to the Operate Unsafe Motor Vehicle.  He received a fine and no demerit points.

My client was charged with Drive Over 80.  The police received a call from the doorman of a bar that had turned my client and a couple of his friends away, believing they were drunk.  The doorman had given the police the license plate number of my client’s vehicle and a few minutes later my client was stopped.  He failed the breath test at the side of the road and was taken to the police station where he registered breath readings of 180.  My client was acquitted at trial after I successfully argued that the breath technician’s testimony did not prove that one of the technical requirements to prove the charge had been satisfied.

My client entered a guilty plea to a Theft charge after she was apprehended in a department store by a security guard who had been following her around the store for some time and who noticed her switching price tags on several items.  A search of B.P.’s purse revealed a price gun and a large number of price tags.  An employee at the store who saw my client get arrested also claimed that she had switched the tag on a high priced item sometime the year before but that she had left the store before the theft had been discovered.  My client had originally been charged with that historical theft as well but I successfully convinced the Crown that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on that charge since the store employee had no idea when in the last year the theft had occurred.  At the sentencing hearing, I successfully convinced the judge that, in my client’s circumstances, a conditional discharge was appropriate. [NO CRIMINAL RECORD]

After a long night of drinking at a bar, N.G. was staggering home when he was approached by the police who, after speaking with my client, gave him a ticket for being intoxicated in a public place.  My client was upset by this and spat in the officer’s face.  This in turn upset the officer who attempted to arrest N.G.  An altercation ensued and my client was ultimately arrested and charged with Assault Resist Arrest as well as Possession of a Controlled Substance since they found marijuana in his pocket.  My client admitted to me that he had issues with alcohol and agreed to go for treatment.  He also participated in a drug diversion program in return for having the Possession charge withdrawn.  I was then able to convince the Crown that my client was addressing his problems and that he was a good young man with a bright future.  The Crown ultimately agreed to withdraw the assault charges against my client in return for him doing some community service. [CHARGES WITHDRAWN][NO CRIMINAL RECORD]

My client ran a convenience store and was concerned with a particular group of kids that he felt was stealing from him.  One day he confronted a young girl about this in the store.  A short while later, the police showed up and arrested my client for Assault.  The girl had gone home and told her mother that my client had yelled at her and tripped her as she exited the store.  After negotiations with the Crown, it was agreed that the Crown would withdraw the charge against my client in return for him entering a peace bond for one year with the condition that he not communicate or have any contact with the girl.

My client was charged with a Domestic Assault in relation to an altercation that had occurred with his girlfriend at the time.  The matter went to trial and my client was ultimately acquitted.  The judge had serious concerns with the truthfulness of the girlfriend’s testimony based on my cross-examination that exposed several inconsistencies between her testimony at trial and her earlier statements to the police.  The judge could also not understand how my client had no injuries to his hand despite allegedly punching a glass window causing it to shatter.

My client was charged with several counts of Assault and Assault Bodily Harm stemming from a brawl that occurred at a club in the entertainment district.  After a meeting with the Crown prosecutor and a judge where I argued that the Crown would have a very difficult time proving the charges against my client considering the chaotic scene at the club and the alcohol involved, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges against my client in return for him entering into a peace bond requiring him to stay out of downtown Toronto for one year.  This was not a problem for my client who did not reside in the downtown core and had no reason to go there.

My client, who had a criminal record, was charged with Obstructing Justice (a straight indictable offence) and Fraud for passing himself off as a lawyer and attempting to represent an individual charged with a criminal offence.  These were very serious allegations and the Crown was seeking a jail term.  On the date set for a preliminary inquiry, I had a meeting with the judge and the Crown attorney.  At the meeting, I managed to convince the Crown not to proceed on the Obstruct charge after arguing that my client’s actions did not make out the elements of that particular charge. My client then entered a guilty plea to the fraud charge.  At sentencing, the Crown still sought a jail term but I successfully convinced the judge to impose a suspended sentence with probation instead.

My client, a young offender, was charged with Mischief along with several other youths for breaking into and causing significant damage to a school bus. Negotiation with the Crown resulted in the Crown agreeing to withdraw the criminal charge in return for my client completing ten hours of community service and entering into a common law peace bond with the condition that he stay away from the location where the incident occurred for one year.

My client was charged with Failing to Remain at the scene of an accident, Possession of a Controlled Substance and Breach of an Undertaking to a Peace Officer.  These charges all stemmed from a single motor vehicle accident in which it was alleged that my client had crashed his car and afterwards had fled the scene.  At the time he was on an Undertaking from previous outstanding charges with conditions that he not drive and that he not consume alcohol or non-prescription drugs.  The police also found a garbage bag with approximately one pound of marijuana outside the car.  I convinced the Crown that although there was some circumstantial evidence to suggest my client had been driving the vehicle, there was not enough to sustain a finding of guilt at trial.  Ultimately the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges in return for a $300 charitable donation.

My client had been charged with Assault with a Weapon, Theft and Mischief stemming from an incident that occurred at a convenience store late at night.  My client had already received two conditional discharges on separate occasions for similar types of offences.  My client told me he was innocent of the theft and admitted to the Assault although he told me that it was not as bad as the victim alleged. There were two innocent bystanders who witnessed the incident so my client stood little chance of being acquitted at trial.  After negotiations with the Crown, the Crown agreed to pull the theft and mischief charges and my client entered a guilty plea to the assault with a weapon after the Crown amended the facts that my client would admit to.  After submissions to the judge, my client received a conditional discharge.

My client had been charged with Assault Causing Bodily Harm.  Other lawyers had told my client that he stood very little chance of winning at trial and that they were able to negotiate a deal with the Crown for a suspended sentence, meaning that my client would have avoided going to jail.  He still, however,would have been placed on probation and most significantly, he would end up with a criminal record.  My client was convinced of his innocence because he felt that he had acted in self defence and was not prepared to enter a guilty plea.  At trial, I was able to establish that the complainant and other Crown witnesses at trial could not be believed.  Ultimately both the Crown and the judge thought my client should be acquitted which is what happened.

My client was charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance stemming from a police search of his vehicle.  He had intentions of going to medical school in the United States and could not face the prospect of a conviction for a drug offence.  At first he tried to handle the matter without hiring a lawyer, and the Crown’s position was tough — they wanted to proceed on the charge and would not consider any sort of diversion program.  After T. came to see me, I reviewed the disclosure and had a meeting with the Crown to negotiate my client’s position.  Within a month, the charged were dropped, and medical school is still in the cards.

My client was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. The allegations included high breath test results and what was described as very bad driving. At trial, after the crown had completed their case and I had cross-examined the officers, it was revealed that a video taken of my client at the police station had been recorded but not disclosed to me despite my previous requests.  Furthermore, in my cross-examination of the witness who observed the driving, it was revealed that the driving was not as bad as the allegations had suggested and that the reliability and credibility of this witness was questionable. Finally, I caught on to a technical defect in the breath technician’s evidence that would have resulted in a conviction on the Over 80 charge being an impossibility. Ultimately, the Crown agreed to my client pleading guilty to Careless Driving under the HTA and thus avoiding a criminal record and the serious consequences that accompany a drinking and driving conviction.

My client, who had a criminal record, was charged with three Domestic Assaults stemming from incidents that occurred on three separate days.  As well my client was charged with breaching a term of his bail by contacting the complainant mere minutes after he was released on bail. The Crown was originally seeking a jail term, but ultimately my client avoided jail and was placed on probation instead with terms that he not contact or communicate with the complainant without her consent and that he go for alcohol counselling.

My client had been charged with Refuse to Provide a Breath Sample at the side of the road. I argued that the officer’s demand that my client provide breath samples was defective and that the judge should have doubts concerning the reliability of the officer’s testimony.  The judge agreed and my client was acquitted.

My client was charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance stemming from a police search of his vehicle.  He had intentions of going to medical school in the United States and could not face the prospect of a conviction for a drug offence.  At first he tried to handle the matter without hiring a lawyer, and the Crown’s position was tough — they wanted to proceed on the charge and would not consider any sort of diversion program.  After T. came to see me, I reviewed the disclosure and had a meeting with the Crown to negotiate my client’s position.  Within a month, the charged were dropped, and medical school is still in the cards.

My client was charged with Drive Over 80.  Prior to the trial, I filed a Charter Application alleging that my client’s right to a trial within a reasonable under section 11(b) had been infringed. The likelihood of a judicial stay of my client’s charge as a result of the delay was borderline considering the length of the delay and the nature of the prejudice my client suffered as a result.  On the morning of trial, I had discussions with the Crown Attorney who agree to my client entering a guilty plea to Careless Driving under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act. This is a non-criminal charge that results in no criminal record or mandatory license suspension.

My client was charged with Uttering Death Threats and Mischief.  These charges stemmed from an incident in which my client texted threats to his ex-girlfriend and the window of one of her friend’s was found broken.  After negotiations with the Crown, the Crown agreed to withdraw the criminal charges in return for my client entering into a peace bond requiring him to stay away from the complainants for one year.  [CHARGES WITHDRAWN][NO CRIMINAL RECORD]

My client had been charged with Impaired Driving, Over 80 and Dangerous Driving stemming from an incident in which he had driven into a house.  His breath tests revealed that his Blood Alcohol Concentration was well over the legal limit. My client had made several statements on the scene both to the residents of the home and to the police, even after he was advised of his rights to counsel and cautioned that he did not have to say anything.  My client admitted several times that he had too much to drink and should not have been driving.  To make matters worse, my client could not remember what had happened.  On the day of trial I convinced the Crown to pull the Impaired Driving and Over 80 charges in return for my client pleading guilty to the Dangerous Driving charge.  My client was fined and although his driver’s license was suspended automatically by the Ministry of Transportation, the judge declined to make a separate Order prohibiting him from driving anywhere in Canada.  Because my client was not found guilty of the drinking and driving related charges, he avoided the requirements of having to take Ontario’s Remedial Measures Back on Track Program  and of having an ignition interlock device installed in any vehicle he drove for the year after he got his license back.  These requirements would both involve significant monetary expenditures.  My client also likely avoided significant increases in his insurance premiums.

My client was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80 stemming from a single motor vehicle accident in which my client drove off the road into a ditch. It turned out that the Crown had failed to subpoena one of their witnesses and on the day of trial this witness did not show up. I knew that the Crown could have proven their case without this particular witness but for some reason, the Crown considered this witness to be crucial to their case and requested an adjournment from the judge. I argued that my client was prepared to have his case tried that day, that there was no excuse for the Crown and police neglecting to serve this witness and that my client would be severely prejudiced by having to come back on some future date to have his case heard. The judge agreed and denied the adjournment request. The Crown subsequently withdrew the case against my client.

My client was charged with Impaired Care or Control and Over 80.  After the trial began and the arresting officer testified, I convinced the Crown that they had significant problems with their case.  The Crown subsequently agreed to drop the drinking and driving charges and offered my client a plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act instead.  I pointed out to the Crown that my client had not been driving and therefore could not enter a plea to Careless Driving.  Ultimately the Crown agreed to having my client enter a guilty plea to being Intoxicated in a Public Place contrary to the Ontario Liquor Licence Act.