Recent successes

June 19, 2026

Obstructing a peace officer, Assault

Charges brought by the prosecution:

The accused allegedly intervened in a police operation on the street while comforting a crying witness.

Defence:

Challenge the legality of the police actions. The police used excessive force when arresting the accused. They acted violently toward the accused without lawful justification. This violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (ss. 7 and 9).

Result:
Charges withdrawn or dismissed.

April 15, 2026

Criminal Harassment, Assault by Choking, Assault with a Weapon, Assault (Domestic Violence)

Charges brought by the prosecution:

The accused allegedly engaged in physical violence against their partner over an extended period. The Crown alleged repeated assaults, episodes of strangulation, and sexual violence in the context of an intimate relationship.

Defence:

Challenge to the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s testimony. The defence highlighted several contradictions, inconsistencies and corroboration issues in the Crown’s evidence. Particular attention was also paid to aspects of the case that could affect the reliability of the allegations.

Result: Acquittal.

February 26, 2026

Extortion, Assault, Assault with a weapon (Intimate partner violence)

Charges brought by the prosecution:

The accused allegedly struck their ex-partner during an argument and damaged some property in the residence. When the complainant allegedly said they wanted to contact the police, the accused then allegedly made threats to obtain a financial advantage or prevent the incident from being reported.

Defence:

Submissions addressing the specific circumstances of the offence, the absence of a criminal record, the steps taken by the accused and the exceptionally severe consequences a criminal conviction would have entailed. The case also raised significant immigration concerns. A conviction resulting in a criminal record would have led to immediate removal from Canada.

Result: Conditional discharge.

February 18, 2026

Assault, Uttering Threats

Charges brought by the prosecution:

Following a road rage incident, the accused allegedly got out of their vehicle to confront the occupants of another vehicle. During the altercation, they allegedly shoved some of the complainants and threatened to kill them.

Defence:

Challenge to the credibility and reliability of the complainants’ accounts. The defence highlighted several contradictions between their statements and the evidence gathered during the police investigation. Testimony from independent witnesses interviewed during the investigation also raised significant doubts about the accuracy of the events as reported by the complainants.

Outcome: Charges withdrawn or dismissed.

January 20, 2026

Breach of conditions

Charges brought by the prosecution:

While released on conditions, the accused allegedly breached an order prohibiting them from possessing or using a mobile phone.

Defence:

Submissions addressing the circumstances surrounding the alleged breach and the accused’s legitimate education and employment needs. The defence demonstrated, among other things, that use of the cellphone was closely tied to continuing their studies and keeping their job, and posed no additional risk to public safety.

Outcome: Charges withdrawn or dismissed.

January 12, 2026

Assault (Intimate partner violence)

Charges brought by the prosecution:

Following an argument outside a licensed establishment, the accused allegedly yelled at and shoved his partner.

Defence:

Submissions addressing all the circumstances of the incident, including the complainant’s stated position that she did not want criminal charges to be laid. The defence also highlighted factors relevant to the public interest assessment.

Outcome: Charges withdrawn or dismissed.

January 07, 2026

Obstructing a peace officer, Assault

Charges brought by the prosecution:

The accused allegedly refused to identify themself during a police intervention. Police then arrested the accused, leading to charges of obstruction and assault.

Defence:

Challenge to the legality of the police intervention. The defence argued that the police had no legal basis to demand the accused’s identification or to arrest them. Arguments under sections 7 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were also raised regarding the arbitrary nature of the arrest and the use of force during the intervention.

Outcome: Charges withdrawn or dismissed.

January 07, 2026

Theft (Shoplifting), Conspiracy to Commit Theft, Possession of Stolen Property

Charges brought by the prosecution:

The accused allegedly left a store with merchandise that had not been paid for. During a check by security guards at the store exit, they reportedly found a discrepancy between the items in the accused’s possession and those listed on the receipt.

Defence:

Submissions based on the accused’s personal circumstances, immigration status, stable employment, family responsibilities and community involvement. The defence also emphasized the particularly serious consequences of a conviction and the accused’s favourable prospects for rehabilitation. In addition, arguments were raised about the weakness of the evidence regarding the criminal intent required to prove the offences, as the evidence remained consistent with the possibility of a mistake or oversight.

Outcome: Charges withdrawn or dismissed.

November 14, 2025

First-Degree Murder, Arson, Possession of a Firearm

Charges brought by the prosecution:

First-Degree Murder, Arson, Possession of a Firearm

Defence:

Submissions based on the accused’s young age, potential for rehabilitation and social reintegration, and sentencing principles. Detailed evidence about their personal, family, and social background was presented to demonstrate that a sentence focused on rehabilitation remained appropriate despite the extreme seriousness of the charges.

Result: 10 years’ imprisonment. A life sentence was avoided.

October 30, 2025

Theft (Shoplifting)

Charges brought by the prosecution:

The accused allegedly stole merchandise from a store by concealing several items under their clothing. Security guards apprehended them as they left the premises.

Defence:

Submissions based on the specific circumstances of the case, the absence of any risk to public safety, the favourable prospects for rehabilitation, and the exceptionally serious consequences a conviction would have caused. The case also involved significant immigration concerns. A guilty finding would have resulted in deportation.

Outcome: Charges withdrawn or dismissed.

October 20, 2025

Fraud, Possession of counterfeit documents

Charges brought by the prosecution:

The accused allegedly committed various bank frauds using stolen or fabricated identities.

Defence:

Challenge to the identification of the alleged perpetrator. The defence highlighted several weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the quality of the photographic evidence, the ability to identify the accused with certainty, and inconsistencies in the evidence collected. The accused’s involvement in the alleged events remained uncertain.

Outcome: Charges withdrawn or dismissed.

October 06, 2025

Criminal Harassment, Assault, Mischief (Domestic Violence)

Charges brought by the prosecution:

The accused allegedly struck and shoved their ex-wife during an argument and damaged some property in the residence.

Defence:

Highlight the contradictions, unreliability and lack of credibility in the ex-wife’s account. The ex-wife was using the criminal justice process to try to gain a strategic advantage in the family law dispute (divorce, child custody, support, etc.).

Outcome: Charges withdrawn or dismissed.

November 19, 2025

Motor vehicle theft

Charges brought by the prosecution:

The accused allegedly took part in the theft of a vehicle as part of a vehicle theft ring, with the aim of moving it to a location for export or resale.

Defence:

Submissions addressing the accused’s young age, lack of a criminal record, rehabilitation efforts, and academic and career prospects. The defence argued that a conviction resulting in a criminal record would be a disproportionate consequence in all the circumstances of the case.

Result: Conditional discharge.

September 05, 2025

Theft (Shoplifting)

Charges brought by the prosecution:

The accused allegedly stole merchandise from a store. The incident was reportedly captured on the store’s surveillance cameras.

Defence:

Submissions addressing the specific circumstances of the offence, the absence of a criminal record, the steps taken by the accused and the exceptionally severe consequences a criminal conviction would have entailed. The case also raised significant immigration concerns. A conviction resulting in a criminal record would have led to immediate removal from Canada.

Outcome: Charges withdrawn or dismissed.

May 06, 2025

Possession of cannabis for the purpose of selling

Charges brought by the prosecution:

Police allegedly saw the accused in an area near a high school while speaking with several young people. Considering the accused’s suspicious behaviour, they allegedly stopped and arrested them. Police also claimed to have seen various cannabis-related products inside the vehicle, which they said justified their intervention.

Defence:

Challenge to the legality of the police intervention by means of an application under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The defence alleged, among other things, an arrest without reasonable grounds, an unreasonable search or seizure, interference with the right to silence, and a violation of the right to counsel. The admissibility of the evidence obtained by police was directly challenged.

Outcome: Charges withdrawn or dismissed.

May 15, 2025

Criminal harassment, Assault, Assault with a weapon, Threats (Intimate partner violence)

Charges brought by the prosecution:

The accused allegedly struck, threatened, and attacked his ex-wife repeatedly over an extended period.

Defence:

Highlight the contradictions, unreliability and lack of credibility in the ex-wife’s account. The ex-wife was using the criminal justice process to try to gain a strategic advantage in the family law dispute (divorce, child custody, support, etc.).

May 12, 2025

Criminal Harassment, Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose

Charges brought by the prosecution:

The accused allegedly arrived at the complainant’s home carrying a machete amid a long-standing dispute. Part of the incident was captured on video.

Defence:

Challenge to the complainant’s credibility and reliability. The video evidence, viewed in context, did not corroborate the Crown’s version. The defence highlighted several contradictions and discrepancies regarding what actually happened.

Result: Acquittal.

May 12, 2025

Criminal Harassment, Break and Enter, Mischief

Charges brought by the prosecution:

The accused allegedly unlawfully entered their former partner’s home to confront her after their separation. During the incident, they allegedly damaged property with a kitchen knife.

Defence:

Submissions based on the accused’s efforts to seek treatment for their drug use, rehabilitation potential, lack of risk of reoffending, and the particularly significant impact a criminal record would have had on their professional circumstances. The defence emphasized concrete efforts to address the issue and reintegrate into society.

Result: Conditional discharge.

February 17, 2025

Drug possession

Charges brought by the prosecution:

The accused was allegedly stopped in a public place while using drugs. During the arrest, prohibited substances were allegedly found on their person. The accused had a prior criminal record for similar offences.

Defence:

Submissions based on the accused’s personal circumstances, rehabilitation efforts and the shortcomings identified in the Crown’s evidence.

Outcome: Charges withdrawn or dismissed.

February 04, 2025

Fraud, Theft

Charges brought by the prosecution:

The accused allegedly took part in a romance scam involving requests for money transfers through false representations and fabricated stories to obtain money from the complainant.

Defence:

Challenge to the reliability and probative value of the prosecution’s evidence. Detailed analysis of the elements of the alleged offences and the evidentiary gaps. The case also involved significant immigration concerns for the accused, who had precarious immigration status. A conviction resulting in a criminal record would have led to immediate removal from Canada.

Result: Acquittal.

January 16, 2025

Criminal Harassment, Assault, Uttering Threats, Theft (Domestic Violence)

Charges brought by the prosecution:

The accused allegedly acted in a controlling, humiliating, aggressive and coercive manner toward their ex-wife.

Defence:

Present the accused’s personal circumstances, lack of a criminal record, rehabilitation potential, and the disproportionate consequences that a conviction would have caused. Submissions were made to pursue a resolution that would avoid the lasting consequences of a criminal record.

Result: Conditional discharge.

August 2, 2023

Uttering a Death Threat (Domestic Violence)

Charges brought by the prosecution:

In the context of a separation, the accused allegedly threatened to kill his ex-partner, specifying how he planned to do so and when he would act.

Defence:

The defence emphasized several factors in the client’s favour, including their excellent prospects for rehabilitation, stable employment, the significant impact a criminal record would have had on their work and international travel, and weaknesses in the Crown’s evidence.

Result: Conditional discharge.

April 9, 2023

Impaired Driving, Operating a Vehicle with a Blood Alcohol Level Over the Legal Limit

Charges brought by the prosecution:

As the accused was driving their vehicle to a border crossing, border officers allegedly stopped them. During the interaction, the officers allegedly observed signs of alcohol impairment and administered an approved screening device (ASD). The results led to impaired driving charges being laid.

Defence:

Challenge to the legality of the arrest and the taking of breath samples by means of an application under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The defence alleged, among other things, violations of the right to counsel, the right to be informed promptly of the reasons for arrest, and the right to silence. The admissibility of the breath test evidence was challenged.

Outcome: Charges withdrawn or dismissed.

March 08, 2023

Impaired Driving, Operating a Vehicle with a Blood Alcohol Level Over the Legal Limit

Charges brought by the prosecution:

Police allegedly found the accused asleep behind the wheel of their vehicle. During the arrest, an illegal substance was reportedly found on their person. According to police observations, the accused showed difficulty speaking and moving, among other symptoms. An assessment by a Drug Recognition Expert concluded that the accused’s abilities were impaired by drugs.

Defence:

Challenge based on a significant violation of the right to counsel guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A detailed application was filed to demonstrate the failure to comply with applicable constitutional obligations and the impact of that violation on the admissibility of the evidence gathered by police.

Outcome: Charges withdrawn or dismissed.