Recent Successes

DOMESTIC

R. v. S.H.

CASEOur client was charged with second degree murder, along with three other co-accused parties. A man was stabbed and killed during an intended robbery during a drug deal.

RESULTWe managed to convince a Superior Court and the Crown Attorney’s office to agree to our client’s release at a murder bail hearing. None of the others charged were released. Through extensive negotiations and pointing out the weaknesses in the Crown’s case, our client’s matter was resolved without having to go back and serve any more time in jail.

R. v. S.S., A.S. & Y.S.

CASE– Our clients were the father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband, charged with assaulting and threatening their daughter-in-law/wife. As a result of the charges, husband was not permitted to have any contact with his parents.

RESULT- Through strategic decisions, we first persuaded the Crown to allow our client’s to have contact with each other. This was important as the husband was the caregiver for his aged parents. Secondly, we convinced the Crown to stay the charges against the father-in-law (the least serious allegations) in an effort to shorten what would have been a lengthy trial. Thirdly, during a Judicial Pre-trial shortly before the trial, we showed the Judge and the Crown that given the mother-in-law’s serious medical condition and difficulty in moving around, it was unlikely she had poured a pot of hot oil on the complainant. This charge was withdrawn at the request of the Crown. Finally, on the eve of the trial, we presented the numerous inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence to the Crown, whom after consulting with their ‘star’ witness, agreed to withdraw the remaining charge against the husband.

R. v. M.M.

CASE–Our client was charged with assaulting her boyfriend by punching and scratching his face. He was charged also. She was also charged with assaulting him the previous year and received a peace bond.

RESULT- Through advocating the sympathetic circumstances of our client’s situation, the Judge agreed to save her from the imposition of a criminal record, despite the injuries that were caused. The Judge imposed an absolute discharge.

R. v. A.C. (2016)

CASE–Our client was charged with criminal harassment and assault (x2) against his girlfriend. Our client maintained his innocence and we ultimately set a date for trial. The client had received two peace bonds in the past for similar types of offences. Based on his history and the complainant’s views, the Crown initially refused to allow our client to enter into another peace bond.

Trial- At trial, we presented numerous photographic and documentary evidence to the Crown. This evidence cast serious doubt on the credibility and truthfulness of the complainant. The Crown agreed to withdraw the charges and our client entered into his third peace bond.

Impaired Driving

R. v. M.V.L.

CASEOur client was charged with over 80, impaired driving and fail to remain at the scene of an accident.The client's alcohol and blood readings taken at the hospital were more than double the legal limit. Independent witnesses saw our client get into the accident and then leave down the street. When the police arrested the client, he was covered in blood.

TRIALA motion was filed for unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We argued that the matter had taken too long to proceed to trial and as a result, the client had been seriously prejudiced.

RESULT Charges STAYED by the Judge as a result of a breach of section 11(b). Client was successful.

R. v. A.A.

CASEOur client was charged with impaired driving and over 80. The client was pulled over for not having her headlights on. The officer immediately smelled an odour of alcohol on her breath upon questioning her. The officer also had some concerns regarding the ownership of the motor vehicle and began an investigation. Some 30 minutes later, it was determined that the vehicle was not stolen and at this point, the officer arrested our client for drinking and driving.

TRIALA motion was brought for the officer not making a breath demand “forthwith” or as soon as practicable. We argued that the officer should have arrested the client much sooner, as required by law.

RESULTCharge DISMISSED.

R. v. S.S

CASEOur client was charged with over 80. The client’s breath alcohol readings at the police station were 110 and 100 mg of alc in 100 mL of blood.

ResultCharge withdrawn. Through negotiations with the Crown’s office, we persuaded them to agree to WITHDRAW the criminal charge in exchange for a guilty plea to a simple Highway Traffic Act matter which only involved points, thereby saving a criminal record, a lengthy driving suspension and the ignition interlock system.

R. v. S.S

CASEOur client was charged with over 80. The client’s breath alcohol readings at the police station were 110 and 100 mg of alc in 100 mL of blood.

TRIALCharge withdrawn. Through negotiations with the Crown’s office, we persuaded them to agree to WITHDRAW the criminal charge in exchange for a guilty plea to a simple Highway Traffic Act matter which only involved points, thereby saving a criminal record, a lengthy driving suspension and the ignition interlock system.

RESULTOur client was charged with Over 80 and Fail to Remain at the Scene of an Accident when she struck another vehicle and left the scene.

R. v. G.D.

CASEOur client was charged with Over 80 and Fail to Remain at the Scene of an Accident when she struck another vehicle and left the scene.

RESULTThe police charged the client with the wrong offence. We were able to delay the case such that the crown was unable to charge the client properly. We then managed to persuade the crown to WITHDRAW all the criminal charges on the trial date in exchange for a guilty plea to a simple Highway Traffic Act matter which only involved points, thereby saving a criminal record, a lengthy driving suspension and the ignition interlock system.

R. v. C.B

CASEOur client was charged with refusing to provide a sample of her breath into an approved screening device during a R.I.D.E. spot check.

RESULT– It was discovered that the police had charged the client specifically with ‘refusing’ when in fact she had made several attempts but ‘failed to provide’ a proper sample. At trial, it was clear upon cross examination that the police officer was unable to testify that our client refused at any time. The judge DISMISSED that case because the crown failed to prove its case.

R. v. M.H.

CASEOut client was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle when he parked his car on the street of a friend’s house for the night but returned to the driver’s seat to charge his phone in the middle of the night.

RESULT– We were able to demonstrate to the Crown that the client’s intention was not to drive. The client was responsible in not driving his car after parking there and taking a taxi to the sport’s bar with his friends. We provided receipts from his taxi cabs that were taken earlier in the evening. The crown WITHDREW the charge completely.