"Our Firm prides itself on serving the community and ensuring that our client's have the optimal result. Our reputation is very important to us, and our results speak for themselves. Contained below is just some of our recent successes." R. vs. S.L. & V.S. Case - Our clients were charged with a large scale fraud where it was alleged that they were defrauding a cheque cashing company that they had operated. Result - Through a series of resolution meetings with the Crown's office, we were able to establish and the Crown agreed that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction and the charges were all withdrawn. R. vs. R.W. Case - client was charged, along with two others, with kidnapping a young child. The mother of the child had made arrangements with our client to babysit the child for a few hours. In reality, the mother was setting up her child to be kidnapped during a supervised child access visit, so she could have custody of the child. Result - Through intense negotiations with the Crown's office, we managed to convince the Crown's office to divert the case out of the criminal justice system. The Crown withdrew the charges. R. vs. G.S. Case - Our client was charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, where it was alleged that our client along with several others had taken steps to steal a large sum of money and drugs from the victim. The police had arrested others and found a firearm, silencer and several hundred thousand dollars in alleged counterfeit money in their vehicle. Our client was charged months later after hearing wiretap evidence suggesting his involvement. At a preliminary inquiry, through cross-examinations and argument, it was established that the wiretap evidence was very weak. Result - The preliminary inquiry Judge dismissed the charge of conspiracy to commit robbery. R. vs. H.M. Case - Several individuals, along with Our client, were alleged to have driven to a strip plaza where one or more of them had allegedly shot and tried to kill the victim. client was charged with attempted murder and held for a bail hearing. Another lawyer had tried to secure his release but was unsuccessful and accordingly, we were hired and brought a bail review to show that Our client was a suitable candidate to be released on bail. We showed the Court that the evidence linking Our client to the shooting was very weak. Result - The Superiour Court of Justice agreed and released Our client on bail, pending the outcome of his case. R. vs. M.V.L. Case - Our client was charged with over 80, impaired driving and fail to remain at the scene of an accident. Our 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 Our client, he was covered in blood. At Trial - A 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, Our client had been seriously prejudiced. Result - Charges stayed by the Judge as a result of a breach of section 11(b). client was successful. DRINKING AND DRIVING R vs. M.S.M Case: Our client was charged with refusing to blow into a roadside screening device. Our client insisted that he did try to blow. There was no medical reason why he couldn't blow. At trial - We cross-examined the police officer with regards to his knowledge of the device he used. It was shown that the officer didn't really know much about the device, other than the basics. Result - the Judge was not satisfied that the officer was operating the device properly and that he was getting error message due to our client's actions. The Judge accepted our client’s evidence that he was genuinely trying to blow into the approved screening device. Our client won his case. R. vs. A.D. Case - Our client was charged with refusing to provide a proper breath sample into a roadside screening device. Our client told the officer that he "wasn't going to blow". Our client was afraid to blow into the device, due to concerns that he would blow over. This particular client had a prior record for a similar offence. We knew that the evidence would not be good at trial. We advised our client that we would have to try to win the case without his testimony. At Trial - The officer wasn't able to explain to the court what his basis was for making the demand. He wasn't able to articulate exactly what the error message was that was being displayed on the approved screening device. Result - The Judge could not be satisfied that the error message on the device was the proper error message which would signify that Our client wasn't blowing properly. We created a doubt that the error message may have meant the device was malfunctioning. This was all done without Our client having to testify. R. vs. R.R. Case - Our client was charged with refusing to blow into an intoxilyzer 5000C. Our client's refusal was video recorded by the police (usually standard procedure). Our client said that he wanted to speak to another lawyer other than the duty counsel that he had already spoken to. The officer kept asking him what the name of the lawyer was. Our client was saying that he needs to talk to his brother to get a name of a lawyer. At Trial - we argued that Our client's right to speak to a lawyer of his choice was violated. It was further argued that since the police control our client's access to a telephone, they had a higher duty to ensure that reasonable efforts were made to get the name and number of the lawyer our client wanted to speak to. Result - After watching the video tape in open court, the Crown was so shocked by the officer's conduct that she asked the Judge to dismiss the charges. R. vs. K.S. Case - Our client was highly intoxicated in the driver's seat of a motor vehicle parked in a parking lot of a nightclub. Our client's alcohol level was approximately 240 mgs of alcohol in 100 mls of blood (that is three times the legal limit). Even though our client wasn't driving he was charged with having "care and control" of a motor vehicle while his alcohol level was above the legal limit. The Crown would have tried to prove the "care and control" due to the fact our client was seated in the driver's seat and the engine was running. At Trial - The witnesses from the nightclub who saw our client sitting in his vehicle didn't appear at the trial date. Without these two witnesses, the Crown could not prove that our client was ever sitting in that car. The police arrived after the witnesses had turned off the engine and helped our client out of the vehicle. Result - The Crown withdrew the charges. R. vs. V.P. Case - Our client was involved in a car accident where the driver of the other motor vehicle was injured.Our client's blood alcohol level was over double the legal limit. Our client showed significant signs of being impaired. At Trial - We took the stategy to show that the signs of impairment were due to our client's injuries in the accident. There was no evidence of bad driving prior to the accident. The accident could have been explained away due to the icy road conditions. Any unsteadiness or red blood shot eyes could also be explained as being due to the injuries and not our client being drunk. The alcohol level was determined by hospital medical testing of the blood. The blood alcohol level was slightly over the legal limit. Result - The court was not satisfied that our client's blood alcohol level was above the legal limit, due to the fact. Hospital testing of blood alcohol levels are not as rigid as The Center of Forensic Sciences testing procedure. Also, the hospital staff was unable to say what the variance of error range was for the testing procedure. The Judge felt that there was not sufficient evidence to show that our client's ability to drive a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol. R. vs. G.C. Case - Our client was a taxi driver and was driving his taxi van home after a night of heavy drinking. The witness had followed our client's van home and observed some very poor driving. He described that at one point there was another taxi van that was talking to our client through an open window. That other taxi van also went and parked in our client's driveway. The police arrived five minutes after the two vans got to the house and our client was arrested from inside his own house. Our client is alleged to have confessed that he was the driver of the van in the garage. At trial - The witness gave contradictory evidence as to where our client parked his taxi van and where the other taxi van was parked. Due to the limited understanding of English, it was shown that the confession was not a true confession of being the driver, but rather was a general comment by our client that "he drives van"; not that "he drove the van". Result - Reasonable doubt was created with regards to the identity of the driver and that the confession was a true admission of being the driver of the van that was travelling poorly that day. Our client was acquitted of all charges. ASSAULTS R. vs. A.S. Case - Our client was charged with having assaulted his wife by hitting her over the head repeatedly and causing some bruising to the arm area. At trial - Our client's wife testified about how she was assaulted and described her injuries. Our client testified that the injuries were caused by him pushing his wife away, when she was assaulting him.He testified that he was attempting to push his wife away when she got angry that her in-laws were not talking to her properly Result - The Judge felt that given the evidence of the wife and husband, they both appeared to be giving a credible version of events. Given this was a criminal case of assault, the Judge needed to be satisified "beyond a reasonable doubt" that our client assaulted his wife. The Judge could not be satisfied of this. He felt that our client's version of events "could" have been true and as a result he must give him the benefit of the doubt and acquit him of the charges. R. vs. P.V. Case - Our client and his wife were separated but still living under the same roof with their child. On a particular day, the wife started arguing with our client about laundry issues. Our client wanted to avoid a confrontation and simply tried to leave the house. His wife continued to follow him outside and continued to yell at him. When she couldn't get her way, she called the police and reported that he had pushed her. At trial - Our client described for the court the tensions that existed in the house and the fact that he did not push his wife that day. Result - The court found Our client to be very credible and could not be satisfied that he actually pushed his wife. The charges were dismissed. R. vs. R.K. Case - Our client was charged with assaulting his wife by pushing her and hitting her in the shoulder area. At trial - Our client completed a counselling program recommended by our firm.  This treatment showed insight into our client’s anger issues and in turn, looked favourably upon him. His wife also assisted in saying some favourable things about him.  As a result of his wife's input and our client's advanced treatment, the Crown exercised their discretion to drop the charges and simply have our client sign a peace bond.(Note: it is not common practice for the Crown to exercise this form of discretion however, in the right case and right circumstances it does happen) Result - Charges dropped and a peace bond signed by client. R. vs. S.P. Case - Our client was charged with some allegations of serious bodily harm . His wife had some serious injuries as a result of Our client repeatedly striking her in parts of her body with a stick. The injuries were consistent with being struck repeatedly. Result - client entered a guilty plea to simple assault and received a sentence including probation and counseling. Our client was able to quickly go home and try to mend his relationship with his wife. He knew that he had done something wrong and was prepared to accept responsibility for his conduct. THEFTS /FRAUDS/ROBBERY R. vs. T.T. Case - Our client was charged with having shoplifted $180.00 worth of items from the Bay. Our client was caught on surveillance video committing the offence. Result - After extensive discussions with the Crown, we were able to secure a withdrawl of the charges. Our client made a charitable donation and participated in an educational seminar on the issue of theft. R. vs. S.S. Case - Our client was charged with pushing a kid at school and taking his ipod. Our client was also a student at the same school. The victim reported the incident to the principle and gave a general description of the suspect. The victim picked out our client from the year book and said he was the one that did the crime. Trial - It was established that the victim picked out our client from the year book because he heard a friend of his tell him that it could have been S.S. that did it. He looked through the year book and pointed to the picture above S.S.'s name. He admitted in court that he couldn't be sure that S.S. was the guy he took his ipod. Result - The Court was not convinced that S.S. was the one that took the ipod. There were significant problems with respect to identity in the case. The charges were dismissed. R. vs. S.L. & V.S. Case - Our clients were charged with a large scale fraud where it was alleged that they were defrauding a cheque cashing company that they were operating. Result - Through a series of resolution meetings with the Crown's office, we were able to establish that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Hence, the charges were all withdrawn. R. vs. G.S. Case - Our client was charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, where it was alleged that our client along with several others had taken steps to steal a large sum of money and drugs from the victim.The police had arrested others and found a firearm, silencer and several hundred thousand dollars in alleged counterfeit money in their vehicle. Our client was charged months later after hearing wiretap evidence suggesting his involvement. Trial - At a preliminary inquiry, through cross-examination and arguments, it was established that the wiretap evidence was very weak. Result - The preliminary inquiry Judge dismissed the charge of conspiracy to commit robbery. R. vs. H.M. Case - Our client was caught with a million dollar shipment of counterfeit H.P. printer ink cartridges. The quality of the counterfeit was apparently very good. It was difficult for the investigators to even determine the originals from the counterfeit items. Result - It became apparent that in order for the Crown to prove the counterfeit nature of the products they would have to disclose to us the exact chemical composition of the ink cartridges. This would be the only way they could show that the ink was not original. The Crown was very hesitant to do this as it would reveal too much detail to our client, which could actually then be used for further criminal activity. The Crown accepted a plea to a minor charge from another our client for a fine and completely withdrew the charges against our client. SEXUAL OFFENCES R. vs. N.S. Case - Our client was charged with having sexually assaulted his wife over a period of time.She only brought the allegations forward three months after she separated from her husband.The allegations were made when our client was in the process of obtaining sole custody of the children and was going to argue in court that their mother had abandoned the children and left to go to India. Trial - The wife testified about the sexual assault.However, it became clear that she wasn't able to provide any details of the events and explain the delayed reporting. Also, it became clear that she had a lot of reasons to fabricate the charges. Result - The Crown withdrew the charges after hearing the cross-examination by counsel for our client. R. vs. A.K. Case - Our client along with two of his relatives were charged with all having sexually assaulted their 22 year old niece. The allegation involved inappropriate touching. Trial - The evidence of the complainant was full of lies. It was shown that she and her boyfriend may have been planning to get the family members charged so that they could take revenge against them for opposing their future planned wedding. The boyfriend and the complainant's evidence were significantly in contradiction to one another. The complainant went to the Brick Warehouse store hours after the alleged sexual assault and purchased a stove (We had proof of the transaction as the Visa slip was signed by the complainant). Result - The Court dismissed all charges against Our client and his two relatives. R. vs. M.S. Case - Our client was charged with having sexually assaulted a girl at a New Years house party. It was alleged the girl was highly intoxicated at the time. The complainant said that she woke up in the middle of the night in the shower having "nonconsensual" sex with our client. Our client always maintained his innocence. He volunteered his DNA and insisted that he never had sex with the complainant. Our client was the one that found the complainant crawling on the ground and helped drive her home that night. Result - After providing the DNA sample and hiring a private investigator to question some of the other house guests at the party; we were able to show the Crown that our client was not the individual that was having sex with the complainant. Charges were withdrawn. DRUGS R. vs. V.J. Case - Our client was charged with having possession of 20 grams of Marihuana. Our client readily admitted that he had possession of the drugs, but wanted us to do everything we could to try to win the case. Trial - The Crown attempted to prove that the drugs were in fact Marihuana by relying upon a Certificate of Analysis as they commonly do. The Certificate was served upon Our client's mother at Our client's home. I brought to the attention of the Crown that service was flawed as our client never actually received the Certificate evidence. As a result the Crown decided to withdraw the charges against our client R. vs. P.D. Case - Our client was apprehended with a small quantity of Marihuana. He was a University Graduate and held a very responsible job. I brought to the attention of the Crown the details about our client and the fact that a Criminal Record would adversely affect his employment situation. The Crown agreed that upon the making of a charitable donation the charges would be withdrawn. Result - Charges were withdrawn. R. vs. T.S. Case - The police had stopped our client's car because it had a loud muffler. The police officer became suspicious of Our client as he appeared very nervous. The officer asked him if he could search the car. Our client felt he didn't have a choice and simply let the police search the vehicle. The police officer located $400.00 worth of cocaine and $150.00 worth of Marihuana. Trial - It was argued that the police had no authority to search the vehicle. The consent that the police relied upon was not an informed consent. Our client was unfairly treated in the manner in which the vehicle was stopped and subsequently searched. Result - The Court held that our client's Charter Rights had been violated and dismissed the charges. OTHER OFFENCES R. vs. R.W. Case - client was charged, along with two others, with kidnapping a young child. The mother of the child had made arrangements with our client to babysit the child for a few hours. In reality, the mother was setting up her child to be kidnapped during a supervised child access visit, so she could have custody of the child. Result - Through intense negotiations with the Crown's office, we managed to convince the Crown's office to divert the case out of the criminal justice system. The Crown withdrew the charges. R. vs. G.S. Case - Our client was charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, where it was alleged that our client along with several others had taken steps to steal a large sum of money and drugs from the victim. The police had arrested others and found a firearm, silencer and several hundred thousand dollars in alleged counterfeit money in their vehicle. Our client was charged months later after hearing wiretap evidence suggesting his involvement. At a preliminary inquiry, through cross-examinations and argument, it was established that the wiretap evidence was very weak. Result - The preliminary inquiry Judge dismissed the charge of conspiracy to commit robbery. R. vs. H.M. Case - Several individuals, along with Our client, were alleged to have driven to a strip plaza where one or more of them had allegedly shot and tried to kill the victim. client was charged with attempted murder and held for a bail hearing. Another lawyer had tried to secure his release but was unsuccessful and accordingly, we were hired and brought a bail review to show that Our client was a suitable candidate to be released on bail. We showed the Court that the evidence linking Our client to the shooting was very weak. Result - The Superiour Court of Justice agreed and released Our client on bail, pending the outcome of his case. R. vs. M.V.L. Case - Our client was charged with over 80, impaired driving and fail to remain at the scene of an accident. Our 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 Our client, he was covered in blood. At Trial - A 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, Our client had been seriously prejudiced. Result - Charges stayed by the Judge as a result of a breach of section 11(b). client was successful.

......................