R v. R.H. – Client was charged with sexual assault. At trial, the defence called evidence from numerous witnesses who contradicted the complainant on material points. The charges were dismissed due to a reasonable doubt over whether she was telling the truth.
R. v. G.L. – Client was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a youth. Several days were spent cross examining the complainant and members of her family. At the conclusion of the trial, the presiding judge was left with a reasonable doubt over what had transpired. All charges dismissed.
R. v. G.P. – Client was charged with sexually assaulting a co-worker. After extensive negotiations with the Crown, including two judicial pre-trials, the client signed a peace bond and the criminal charges were withdrawn.
R v. Y.A. – Client was charged with a firearm robbery. Trial dates were set, but later the Crown conceded it would not be able to prove identity. The charges were withdrawn at their request.
R v. R.K. – Client was charged with robbing the complainant with a firearm. After four days of trial, the client was acquitted of all charges. The trial judge was left with a reasonable doubt given the significant inconsistencies in the complaint’s evidence.
R v. R.B. – Client was charged with importing a firearm into Canada. Successful negotiations ultimately led to the client receiving a conditional sentence order.
R v. D.J. – Client was charged with robbery with a firearm. During pretrial discussions, the Crown accepted the defence’s position that the client was just a bystander to the incident. The firearms charge was withdrawn at the request of the Crown.
R v. A.M. – Client was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. He was the only occupant in a motor vehicle where one ounce of cocaine was found. The defence called several witnesses at trial. In the end, the trial judge was left with a reasonable doubt as to whether the client knew about the drugs in the car.
R v. G.C. – Client charged with possession of cocaine, crack cocaine and heroin for the purposes of trafficking. Client was driving the vehicle where the drugs were found. After three days of trial, the client was ultimately acquitted of all the most serious charges. The court also found that the Charter rights of the client had been breached during the investigation.
R v. D.T. – Client charged with possession of OxyContin and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. During pre-trial discussions with the Crown and judge, serious issues with the case were pointed out. The client’s charges were ultimately withdrawn once he signed a statutory declaration.
Note: Criminal cases are all unique. Past successes do not guarantee future results. Each individual case needs to be discussed with your lawyer to determine the best possible outcomes.