Our client, Mr. M, was a middle-aged man with adult children and who had no criminal record. He was accused of sexual assault by two of his children, who claimed that the alleged assaults had taken place over a period of several years between 20 and 30 years prior.
Our client, Mr. Z, was a young man with no prior criminal record, but found himself facing serious criminal allegations when he was charged with two child pornography offences as well as smuggling an item into Canada. These were very serious allegations, and the Crown was seeking a period of at least 1 year in jail on a conviction. In addition, if Mr. Z were convicted, he would have to register as a sex offender for a long period of time.
Our client, Mr. C, was a middle-aged man with a wife and kids and no prior criminal record. He found himself facing serious allegations, however, when he was accused of sexually assaulting the daughter of a former partner nearly 20 years prior.
Mr. H was a man with a good job, a wife and kids, but found himself in serious trouble when he was arrested on child pornography charges. He was accused of both possessing and accessing child pornography.
Our client, Mr. W, was arrested and charged with possessing child pornography, and further charged with mischief and voyeurism a number of months later, after the seizure of his belongings. These were serious charges that would lead to jail time as well as registration as a sex offender for Mr. W if convicted.
Ms. Q signed a peace bond for $1,000.00, payable only if she violated the law, possessed a weapon, was found at the grocery store the initial incident took place at, or contacted the couple involved in the fight. Her charges were dropped and she was free to put the unfortunate incident behind her.
In an unfortunate turn of events, Mr. M and three other vehicles ended up in a collision, and Mr. M was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm.
Getting the criminal charge of over 80 dropped was the priority. The Highway Traffic Act charges carried fines and penalties, but no criminal record. A plea deal to have the criminal charges dropped would be a fine option that avoided trial and saved the client money.
Mr. C experienced what many of us have in the past; an argument with his partner. At the time he was only a few minutes from his house at a local bar. He wanted to return home quickly due to the fight, so he finished his beer, got in his car, and began to drive home.
While on his drive home from a charitable event, Mr. B was stopped by police in a RIDE check. He had consumed only a small number of drinks that evening, and they were spread out over several hours, but Mr. B was nervous because he rarely encounters police.
Mr. T’s ability to drive was central to his practice as a butcher. Farmers would contact Mr. T in emergencies where livestock needed to be put down and butchered quickly and losing his ability to travel for work would be financially devastating.
An accused that agrees to participate in counselling, community service hours, and agreements to uphold the peace, saves the government money and helps put the accused back in society where they can be a productive citizen.
The outcome of Ms. M’s trial was not only a victory for Ms. M herself, but also for all those detained by the York Regional Police moving forward.
One October night, Mr. M, his ex, and their friends Ms. M and Ms. S, were out on the town. Despite the intentions of Mr. M and his ex to remain friends, Ms. M and Ms. S were unsupportive.
Mr. G and Ms. L collided while driving on a residential street. The interaction between the two became heated, and involved them driving side-by-side, shouting at one another from their own cars, and Ms. L alleges Mr. G was tailgating for some time. After the collision Ms. L claims that Mr. G sped off.
An investigation by the OPP for over a year led to the arrest and charging of four individuals, including Mr. G. Over $60,000 in controlled substances were seized. While the other three were charged with possession of a controlled substance and conspiracy to traffic, Mr. G was charged only with conspiracy to traffic. He asserted his innocence from the beginning.
Mr. R was detained by security guards at an entertainment venue late one August evening after he and another party were separated for a consensual fight. Mr. R was injured after the fight and was treated for his injuries by EMS, but subsequently placed in the venue’s holding cells. Security alleges that while Mr. R was in the holding cell he repeatedly kicked the door, damaging both the door and the frame.
Late one May afternoon in Markham Mr. B and Mr. H became engaged in an altercation while pulled over on the side of the road; a bit of ‘road rage’. During the argument Mr. H. wound up on the ground and Mr. B struck him repeatedly on the shoulder. After the argument ended Mr. B drove away, and Mr. H contacted the police.
The evidence collected after Mr. M told the officer he accepted duty counsel as his representation was deemed inadmissible, and the charges of over 80 were dismissed. Mr. M left the courtroom that day without fear that a criminal record might harm his business or his family.
Facebook messages combined with an effective cross examination of the complainant on the first day of trial proved compelling. The Crown agreed to drop the charges if Mr. A was willing to sign a peace bond. He did so happily.
During the search the officer found one container of marijuana belonging to Ms. C and one bag of marijuana belonging to Ms. S. In the glove compartment the officer found a small bag of white powder, which upon testing was revealed to be cocaine. The two were charged and read their right to counsel. This is where Ms. C and the officer’s recollection of the events diverge.
This case showcases the way a criminal charge can drag on, consuming the accused’s life for months, all while the accused is still presumed innocent.
CASE STUDY: Plea Bargain: Robbery; Wearing a Disguise with Intent; & Possession of a Weapon for a dangerous purpose (2 out of 3 withdrawn).
In cases where there is overwhelming evidence for the Crown to make the case out beyond a reasonable doubt, sometimes a conservative approach to a Robbery charge is far more beneficial as opposed to grasping at straws.
Following a rather serious accident, an individual was charged with criminal negligence causing bodily harm. What was their intent?
The Crown called one witness but we called three. We effectively cross-examined the Crown’s witness (the officer) and were able to present our three witnesses as credible. We successfully rebutted the presumption. Mr. T.G. was therefore acquitted of the charge.
Both the impaired and the over 80 charges were dismissed as a result of the the judge ruling that the officer’s testimony was not credible.
Mr. G needed to avoid all the repercussions of the criminal record that would flow from a conviction of the Over 80 offence.
Inconsistencies in evidence about the sexual touching between police statement, preliminary hearing evidence and trial evidence made evidence not reliable nor believable.