Verifiable Results
Client was granted a conditional discharge for a sexual assault. After presented little-known but binding case law from a higher court, the presiding judge agreed that when a conditional discharge is ordered, the offender need not register for the Sexual Assault Information Registry (SOIRA).
Employment Insurance alleged a substantial overpayment of thousands of dollars. After replying to the allegations in writing, overpayment was reduced to less than $100.
Police stopped a vehicle alleging window tints were too dark and then searched the vehicle finding illegal narcotics. At trial the judge agreed the stop was arbitrary. and the search was contrary to Charter. Full acquittal.
R. v. A.A.
Client was charged with aggravated assault and mischief to property in a domestic conflict. Crown sought 18 months in jail if convicted. A jury found the client not guilty of aggravated assault but guilty of mischief for breaking a coffee table. He was sentenced to probation.
R. v. T.D.
Client's Superior Court, judge-alone trial had begun but his lawyer had to leave the case due to illness. The client was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference on his girlfriend's teenage daughtor. During a detailed cross-examination the daughtor's auditory delusions and mental illness were revealed. When acquitting the client of all charges, the judge cited numberous examples of contradictory testimony and departures from reality.
R. v. V.O.
Client was accused of trying to run over his ex-wife with his car as both left family court. At trial I demonstrated that because he turned left, he could not have driven near her - unless she ran across 2 lanes of traffic towards his car. During acquittal the presiding judge told my client his ex-wife was a danger to him and to have a witness with him at future family court dates.
R. v. M.A.
Client was charged with serious sexual offences against an elementary school girl. He was alleged to enter a school bathroom stall and touched the girl's genitals. Media attended his bail hearing. After court, Stephanie addressed the media scrum advising that bail was not sought and we cannot comment until receiving disclosure. Careful selection of court dates ensured the client disappeared from public attention. Media interest evaporated after a few weeks.
R. v. Finelli
Undercover police testified at a jury trial that the client offered to sell them cocaine. Prosecutor sought jail if convicted. The client was adament he was present but made no offer. Crown agreed that client conduct from a different incident was irrevelent and would not be admitted. At trial the Crown elicited that evidence from his witness. Defence motion for a mistrial was granted and the Crown Attorney later agreed to resolve the matter by way of diversion.
R. v. M.P.
My client was charged with possession for the purpose of a substantial quantity of narcotics found in his freezer after a search warrant was executed. He was a single father and the CAS removed his teen son. After repeatedly filing motions to unseal the police affidavit used to obtain the search warrant, significant delay accrued. At the jury trial I filed a motion to stay proceedings on the basis of unreasonable delay. Justice Nordheimer granted my motion. As a result the Attorney General changed its policy to voluntarily unseal and disclose to defence lawyers all police affidavits used to obtain search warrants.
My client insisted his broken nose was caused when a police office assaulted him with his baton after an arrest for impaired driving. After obtaining records from the SIU, an additional witness was identified. His statement corroborated the client's version of events and the Crown stayed all charges.
R. v. T.M.
The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation for a client. An identical application failed a few years previously, but now the client had been found guilty of similar reoffending. This second application was also denied. The presiding Superior Court judge agreed that few of the treatments previously recommended had been provided and ordered that the client be designated a long-term offender. The judge was convinced that the client deserved a second opportunity to take recommended treatments.
R. v. T.K.
At trial the client was found guilty of domestic assault and threatening death. The judge ordered him into custody while awaiting sentencing. The next day our office filed a Notice of Summary Conviction Appeal and obtained Bail Pending Appeal a day later. The Summary Conviction Appeal was successful and the convictions and sentence overturned.
R. v. A.A.
The bail court judge detained my client asserting that the principles cited in
R. v. Gladue regarding the overincarceration of aboriginal persons were not relevant to bail hearings. Our office appealed by filing a bail review. The Crown Attorney in Superior Court agreed that Gladue principals do apply to bail hearings and the presiding Justice confirmed it. My client was released on his own recognizance.