DOMESTIC - SERIOUS BODILY HARM
R. vs. B.K.
Our Client, who resides in Mississauga, was charged with having assaulted his wife. There were serious injuries on her neck and arms, consistent with having been assaulted.
Our client retained our services quickly. We were able to enroll him into a Domestic Assault Counselling program offered in Mississauga. He entered a plea of guilt to the charge of assault. We were able to convince the Brampton Court Judge to grant our client an Absolute Discharge. By doing so, he avoided a Criminal Conviction. He was able to reunite with his family within a few weeks of being charged. The Absolute Discharge only appears on the CPIC computers for a period of one year.
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.
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. A CASE was commenced in the Brampton Criminal Courts.
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 satisfied "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. S.M.
CASE Our client was charged with assaulting his wife during a late night argument. The wife called 911 because she was concerned for her safety. She gave a videotape statement of what occurred. After a few days, she regretted calling the police and wanted her husband to return home. However, due to the pending charge and the bail conditions, our client could not communicate with her or go back home.
RESULT After getting the police report, it was clear that this was a low level assault. There were no injuries or children present during the assault. We got the Crown Attorney to meet with the wife and get her views of the matter. Her positive input assisted us in getting the Crown to give us a section 810 peace bond. Our client was required to do some upfront counseling. As a result, our client was reunited with his wife within two weeks of being charged and avoided a criminal record.
R. vs. G.K.
Our client threatened to kill his tenant as a result of a ongoing dispute. He continued to make the threats in the presence of the police.
After presenting positive input about our client and her background, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges as long as our client agreed to stay away from the Complainant. Our client was happy as she avoided the stress of a trial and avoided a criminal record.
R. vs. A.V.
CASE Our client was alleged to have attended the home of the Complainant and in the course of an argument threatened to Kill her and her family.
RESULT After presenting positive input about our client and her background, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges as long as our client agreed to stay away from the Complainant. Our client was happy as she avoided the stress of a trial and avoided a criminal record.
SCHOOL YARD ASSAULT
R. vs. A.Z.
Our Client was charged as a result of an assault that took place at a Brampton school. Our client was alleged to have thrown a carton of milk at the complainant and then hit him repeated.
The charges were withdrawn. Although our client did assault the Victim; it was held that giving him a criminal conviction would not in anyone’s interest. The Crown agreed to a Diversion Program, where he had to apologize to the Victim and write an essay on school violence. The charges were completely withdrawn.
R. vs. P.K.
Our client was charged with Aggravated Assault as a result of an assault against his wife. She alleged that as a result of the assault, she had complications with her pregnancy and lost her child.
We were able to get documents from a hospital in India that showed that the wife did not lose her child because of the husband, but rather she had an abortion in India. Our theory was that she returned to India because she was having problems in her marriage. When in India, her parents convinced her to have an abortion. She came back to Canada after the abortion and tried to blame him for the loose of their unborn child.
The Judge found our client to be credible and believed our theory of the case and found our Client NOT Guilty.
IMPAIRED DRIVING - SERIOUS ACCIDENT
R. vs. M.S.
Our client was charged with Impaired Driving & Over 80. His vehicle was located in the ditch off of Hwy 407 in Mississauga. The police located the client sitting inside of the vehicle. The vehicle was not operable at the time police arrived. Our client was taken to the Brampton Police Station and provided breath samples of 220 mgs of alcohol in 100 mls of blood.
At Trial, the Crown was unable to prove at what time my client drove the vehicle. The judge held that our client could not have Care or Control of an inoperable vehicle. As a result, the Brampton Judge dismissed the charges against our client.
R. vs. D.B.
CASE Our client was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. His alcohol reading according to the police was 160 & 170 mgs of alcohol in 100 mls of blood. It was alleged that our client was not driving properly and was very unsteady on his feet.
TRIALA trial was conducted where we challenged the admissibility of the breath samples, due to a Charter violation. Our client was not fluent in English as he spoke mainly Punjabi. Our client did not understand his Rights to Counsel when it was read to him by the Police Officer. He made his lack of understanding of English known to the officer. The officer failed to get a Punjabi speaking officer or an interpreter.
RESULT The judge found our client’s Rights were violated and excluded the breath samples. As a result he was found NOT GUILTY of the charge of Over 80. The Judge felt there was some doubt in terms of whether our client was Impaired or whether he was just unsteady on his feet do to a prior knee injury. Our client was found NOT GUILTY of Impaired Driving.
IMPAIRED CARE & CONTROL
R. vs. W.Q.
Our client was driving on the QEW when his engine blew. He safely moved over to the shoulder of the road and called for a tow truck. Police arrived and found our client in the driver’s seat of the car. The police never saw my client actually driving the car; however, the police felt that he was in Care of Control of a motor vehicle.
At trial, I convinced the Crown to proceed on the “Care or Control” as having occurred when the police arrived and not to consider the earlier driving. The Crown agreed to proceed on this basis. My client testified truthfully to having driven 10 minutes before police arrival and explained how at the time police arrived his vehicle was incapable of being driven. The Court accepted his evidence and felt that sitting in the driver’s seat of a care whose engine was seized was not considered to be in “Care or Control” of a motor vehicle. All charges were dismissed.
REFUSE BREATH SAMPLE
R. vs. H.D.
Our client was charged with two separate offences occurring on two separate dates. The first involved a neighbours complainant that our client was acting weird outside her house. When police came to investigate and deal with the situation, our client is alleged to have bitten the female officer’s finger. A few months later, our client was charged with driving drunk and not providing a breath sample.
Our client was suffering from severe depression and we were able to get medical documents showing that at the time of the two offences, she did not have the “mental element” to commit the offences. She was given the wrong dosage of mediation, which caused her to act out. With regards to the drunk driving, she wasn’t even aware that she had gotten into a car to drive after consuming a small quantity of alcohol. The medication was causing her to have no control over her actions. We were able to get the charges diverted in Mental Health Act Court; as a result, our client was able to avoid a criminal record and any form of license suspension.
R. vs. R.P.
CASE Our client was stopped exiting the parking lot of an LCBO located in Brampton. He was ordered to provide a breath sample into a roadside screening device. The officer claimed that our client didn’t blow properly into the device and charged him with Refusing a Breath Sample.
TRIAL At trial, our client testified that the officer was very impatient with him. Also, the way the Brampton Police officer conducted himself, made our client very nervous. Our client testified that he tried his best to provide a sample. The officer also misstated the error message on the Approved Screening Device. As a result the Brampton Judge dismissed the charges.
DANGEROUS DRIVING & STUNT DRIVING
R. vs. A.D.
Our client was charged with racing another car on a stretch of Highway in Brampton. It was alleged that our client was travelling in excess of 70 km/hr over the speed limit.
Our client retained our services quickly. We were able to engage the Brampton Crowns office in resolution discussions. We presented very positive information about our client’s education and positive community service work he had performed. The Brampton Crowns office agreed to withdraw the Criminal charges, in exchange for a plea of guilt to speeding 30 km/hr over the speed limit. This saved our client from a criminal conviction and a licence suspension.
IMPAIRED DRIVING SERIOUS ACCIDENT
R. vs. N.R.
Our client was involved in a single motor vehicle collision on the QEW. There were no eyewitnesses to the actual driving. A citizen did call police but did not wait for them to arrive at the scene. Our client confessed to being the driver. Our client was outside of the car looking at the damage when the police arrived.
At trial the crown was not able to use the confession given by our client; as it was a compelled statement. The Highway Traffic Act required you to identify yourself as a driver after an accident. The officer did not warn our client that she was being investigated for Impaired Driving. Without this warning her confession was considered to be invalid.
The Judge excluded our client’s confession. Without that confession, the Crown had no other evidence that our client was actually the driver.
POSSESSION OF A GUN & ATTEMPT MURDER
R. vs. V.C.
Our client was charged as a result of a shooting that took place in a Parking Lot in Mississauga. A person was shot in the leg as a result of an outstanding debt. The Victim identified four people that were involved in the shooting. My client was the proper holder of a Gun License and the police assumed that he must have used one of his guns.
We were able to convince the Brampton Crown that our client did come to the parking lot in another car (the four guys had come in two separate cars) but was not actually involved in the Shooting. The police checked our client’s collection of guns and were satisfied that none of the guns had recently been fired. Our client was not in the car with the shooter and we were able to show that he wasn’t part of any of the conversations regarding a possible shooting. The Crown agreed to completely withdraw all charges. Our client was not a Canadian Citizen and was concerned about the possibility of being deported if convicted.
THEFT OF A TRACTOR TRAILER 4 MILLION DOLLARS
R. vs. N.A.
Our client was apprehended with a Tractor Trailer full of 4 million dollars worth of stolen goods. The Tractor Trailer had apparently been stolen from a Truck Yard.
Our client testified that he was given a work order to pickup the Trailer from the Truck Yard and deliver it to a storage facility. He had no Criminal Record and had never been in trouble before.
The Court believed the accused’s version of events and believed that he had no knowledge of the stolen nature of the goods. He was found NOT GUILTY.
R. vs. P.L.
Our client attended a shopping mall in Mississauga. While purchasing an expensive purse, it was discovered that two "one hundred dollar bills" were actually counterfeit. Our client was charged with uttering counterfeit currency.
At trial, we showed the court that our client was a hard working person. That she had no knowledge that the bills were counterfeit. Our client was 49 years of age and resided in Mississauga her entire life. She had never had any prior police involvement. The Judge dismissed the charges against our client.
R. vs. M.N.
Our client was approximately 70 years old and was charged with inappropriately touching his granddaughter on several occasions. The touching was alleged to have been of a sexual nature. Our client insisted that there was never any inappropriate touching. Any physical touching was of an innocent nature.
: We presented the Crown with information that other grandchildren were prepared to testify that they never say our client touch any of the grandchildren inappropriately. The Complainant’s mother didn’t want her daughter to testify as it would only cause more stress and damage to her. As a result, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges after consultation with the Complainant and her mother.
R. vs W.B.
CASE : Our client was a School lunch room monitor. He had children at the school as well. He was accused by an 8 year old student that he was inappropriately touching her during the lunch breaks over a one year period of time.
RESULT: The Police had conducted no investigation into this case, before charging my client. We were able to interview and call two very experienced teachers to testify that they were in the area of where the sex assaults allegedly took place, and that it was not possible for our client to escape with the complainant and touch her on school property. The indoor lunch period was only 20 minutes and during that time, our client was responsible for taking care of 80 kids. The students were small kids that would follow him around. It was not possible for him to leave all these kids and take the one child into a private room and touch her on a daily basis. After a four day Superior Court trial, all charges were dismissed against our client.
R. vs. A.K.
CASE Our client along with two of his relatives were charged with all having sexually assaulted their 22 years 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.
DRUG POSSESSION HEROIN
R. vs. S.S.
Our client was apprehended in Brampton by Peel Regional Police during a drug take down. Police were following a known drug trafficker in his car. They saw a known drug trafficker meet my client in a Tim Horton’s parking lot and get into my client’s car. The Police saw some unusual activity in the car and then saw the dealer get out and return to his car. The police clamped down on both the dealer and my client. They found 12 grams of heroin on the dealer and none on my client. The Crown’s theory was that the dealer was going to sell drugs to my client but discovered that an undercover police car was in the parking lot, so he left without actually selling my client the drugs.
I was able to convince the Crown that their theory had no value and that our client is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Although things may look suspicion, they had no proof that he was meeting the dealer to buy heroin. The Crown withdrew all charges.
R. vs. S.G.
Our client was the home owner of a property in which the police located over $20,000.00 worth of Heroin and two guns. Our client was in a relationship with the basement tenant (where the guns and drugs were found), and as a result, the police charged both the basement tenant and our client.
The Police were very slow in providing us with full disclosure. There was a confidential informant involved and the police were delaying providing us with information that the informant provided to the police. After eight months of waiting for this information and my numerous requests, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges against my client and they continued to proceed against the basement tenant. My client was gainfully employed in a responsible position and had very limited access to the basement were the evidence was found. We were able to show the crown that they did not have any “reasonable prospect of conviction”. Charges were completely Withdrawn;
R. vs. M.S.
CASE Our client was charged with Possession of 15 grams of Marihuana while on the premises of a Mississauga High School.
RESULT We proceeded to trial on the charges. The Mississauga Police had failed to provide us with proof that the drugs were tested, and that the substance was in fact Marihuana. It’s not good enough for the police to give their opinion that it was Marihuana. The substance must be scientifically tested and analyzed. The Brampton Prosecutors office decided to withdraw the charges against our client.
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE CAUSING DEATH
R. vs. M.S.
Our client was charged with Criminal Negligence Causing Death, as a result of an altercation outside of a Bar. Our client was alleged to have struck the Victim with his SUV in the parking lot causing him to pass away.
We were able to negotiate a plea, wherein we were able to avoid a jail sentence. Our client was sentenced to house arrest for a period of time which required him to stay at home except for going to work.
R. vs. H.G.
Our client was charged along with four other young males with having robbed a 15 year old boy of his cell phone at a Brampton park.
Our client quickly retained my services upon being charged. As a Mississauga Criminal Defence lawyer with over 20 years of experience, I was able to convince the Crown that our client was present during the robbery, but he did not participate in it. The Crown agreed to withdraw the charges.