Representative Cases

Impaired, Over 80 mgs., Refusal, etc.

R. v. F - client charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80 mgs. alcohol with readings of 265/270. Police in an unmarked vehicle observed client leaving parking lot of local Niagara tavern and followed for approximately 3 klms on Lundy's Lane when client stopped, questioned, alleged observations made by police with no "roadside screening device" made but client arrested. After receiving full disclosure of police evidence (including videos of breathalyzer and "booking" of client at the station, police communication etc.) and taking matter to a fully contested 3 day trial client found not guilty of Impaired Driving. The Over 80 mgs. was successfully defended on constitutional grounds of arbitrary detention, unlawful arrest and unlawful search and seizure of client's breath. The evidence of the breathalyzer readings were excluded from the trial and the client was found not guilty of all charges. Client able to continue on with employment navigating ships on Great Lakes.

R. v. M - Elderly Italian client having difficulty with English language; charged with Impaired and Over 80 mgs. after a minor motor vehicle accident on a rainy night. The client blew Over 80 mgs. the police maintained that the client had been given his rights to counsel, however, defence counsel conclusively demonstrated that the police had failed to properly advise client as to rights to counsel insofar as the client did not fully understand his rights to counsel and the police knew such. Defence brought a constitutional application on the basis that the client's rights to counsel were denied and that such denial was corroborated by the disclosed evidence from the police themselves. The senior prosecutor withdrew all charges before commencement of the trial complementing the defence application/materials and advising the court that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

R. v. M - Young client charged with Impaired Driving and Refusal of Breath Test. Police observed client driving out of local Niagara sports bar and stopped him. Police detected alcohol on his breath and client admitted to drinking and was co-operative in providing the roadside breath sample which he failed and was arrested. At the station he refused to provide a breath sample. A fully contested trial was conducted whereupon the Impaired Driving was dismissed. The defence brought an application of denial of rights to counsel on the basis that the client had requested to call his mother to get a lawyer and that the police failed to do so. The cross-examination by defence counsel at the trial elicited the "truth" out of the false evidence given by police as confirmed by the disclosed evidence. Client found not guilty.


R. v. M - Client charged with Refusal of breath demand. Client properly stopped for traffic violation. The trial was fully contested where the question for the Judge was the credibility of the testimony of the police versus the testimony of the client. They both gave evidence and Judge ruled that she had a "slight doubt" in favour of client. Charge dismissed. Essence of victory was the cross-examination of police by the defence which undermined the police officer's testimony. Just as important was the thorough preparation of the client (modest education) to give credible evidence in court which he did.

R. v. B - Client, a female coming back from a business meeting in the United States and arrested at the Rainbow Bridge for Impaired and Over 80 mgs. Contested trial was conducted. A successful 11(b) Charter Application (citizen's right to be tried within a reasonable time) made on the third day of trial with the prosecutor offering a withdrawal of the charges of Impaired and Over 80 mgs. and offering a plea of guilty to the Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. Charges of Impaired and Over 80 mgs. withdrawn

R. v. S. - Client charged with Over 80 mgs. Alcohol in Blood while Driving a Motor Vehicle. Client speeding and went through stop sign and stopped by police. Police smelled alcohol on the client's breath and made a "roadside demand" which client failed and was arrested. The defence fought the charge by way of a constitutional application that the police had failed to provide the client with his right to counsel "forthwith" according to law. Prosecutor offered withdrawal of Criminal Code charge of Over 80 mgs. with plea of guilty to Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving which client accepted avoiding the Criminal Code consequences. Essence of the defence based on the defence counsel's ability to formulate a constitutional argument resulting in a withdrawal of the Criminal Code charge.

R. v. C - Client charged with Impaired and Over 80 mgs. after client's car found inoperable on a snow bank in Niagara. Trial contested whereby after extensive cross-examination by the defence of the arresting officer and the testimony of the second attending officer, the prosecutor offered to withdraw the Criminal Code charges of Impaired and Over 80 mgs. with a plea of guilty to the Highway Traffic Act charge of Careless thereby avoiding the Criminal Code consequences.

Sexual Assault

R. v. W - Client was charged with numerous sexual offences, including mulitiple counts of sexual assault and sexual interference with a minor (under 14). This matter was one of the most serious sexual assault allegations wherein the allegations by the young step-daughter were horrendous involving sexual activities involving sexual props "deviant behaviour" and complaints of oral sex, vaginal and anal intercourse over a period of 3-5 years, when the complainant was anywhere from 9 to 13 years old. At the judicial pre-trial the prosecutor offered 10-12 years in prison on guilty pleas which were rejected. Three days of preliminary hearing were conducted and thereafter a two week jury trial was conducted whereupon on the first trial the jury was unable to reach a verdict and a mistrial was declared. On the second jury trial after approximately 2 weeks of testimony and evidence the jury came back and acquitted within 45 minutes. The client was found not guilty on all charges avoided a lengthy penittentiary term and was able to go on with his life.

R. v. O - Client charged sexual assault, sexual interference, assault cauging bodily harm etc. involving three step-daughters. Once the allegations were made the police entered his home and forcefully awoke and arrested client who was in bed and shocked by the allegations. The matter proceeded to a Superior Court judge after a preliminary hearing was conducted. At the end of the preliminary hearing, based exclusively on the cross-examination of the younger complainant wherein it was proved that the young complainant was under the influence of her older sister and fabricated evidence, the crown withdrew a series of charges relating to that complainant. At the Superior Court trial the client gave evidence and was acquitted on all charges as, based on the cross-examination of the complainants (two sisters and the mother) the judge had no difficulty in dismissing the charges as there was more than an substantial doubt as to the guilt of the client. The client was carefully prepared to give evidence and did so without difficulties which contributed to his successful defence. Client found not guilty on all charges and able to continue on with his life.

R. v. M - Client was charged. The main complainant was his 15 year old step-daughter who had an animus towards the step-father. The police evidence involved video recordings, internet clippings, forensic computer and forensic camera evidence and police expert forensic computer/technological examination evidence. Five days of preliminary hearing was conducted wherein the defence set up the foundational attack for the Superior Court judge alone trial. A constitutional application was brought and successfully resulted in video recording evidence being excluded on the basis of the infringement of the client's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure and his right to counsel. Notably the client did not give evidence on his own behalf (his choice). The court dismissed all charges and found the client not guilty based on the cross-examination of the complainant, her sister, her mother and the police. The defence was able to demonstrate that the complainant was untrustworthy, and unreliable insofar as she, through the defence lawyer's cross-examination, gave contradictory statements on different occasions on material aspects of her evidence, was contradicted by independent witnesses (not just the accused) on material parts of her evidence; gave scenarios which, through human experience, were highly improbable to have occurred etc. Unfortunately the client lost his job at the casino because of casino policy however, he was able to avoid a lengthy period of incarceration, avoid a criminal record as a sex offender and, avoid enrollment in the sexual registration regimes. Still the client was found not guilty did not go to jail and was able to go on with his life.

R. v. W. - Client was charged with Sexual Assault; Attempt to Choke; Unlawful

Confinement; Assault; Dangerous Operation of Motor Vehicle. He was alleged to

have gotten into a confrontation with a prostitute who later claimed that she had

been sexually assaulted, assaulted and was confined and forced to drive in a

dangerous manner in the client's truck. The first order of business was to obtain

the client's release which was done. After obtaining all the disclosure and

careful review of same, there was no question in my mind that the client's DVD

statement given to the police was inadmissible as being involuntarily made as

defined by law. After one year of proceedings all charges were withdrawn by the

crown with the crown conceding that there was no reasonable prospect of


R. v. P - Client was charged with two counts of Sexual Assault; the client was arrested at his home and unfortunately gave a false statement to the police. The issue was one of consent. After obtaining full disclosure a preliminary hearing was conducted wherein the foundation for cross-examination was laid by the defence. The trial was conducted in the Superior Court in Welland by way of judge and jury. At the Superior Court the client's false statement to police was ruled admissible, however, significant portions were edited out as to allow such in before the jury would have been unfair and prejudicial to the client and would detract from the merits on the issue of consent. A further application was made to the Superior Court to exclude the client's related previous conviction and such application was successful on the grounds that it's introduction would have been prejudicial to the client and would distract the jury from assessing the merits on the issue of the consent. In this particular case the client had to give evidence to explain as to why he lied to the police. The jury accepted his explanation, accepted his version of events or was, at least left in reasonable doubt by his version and found him not guilty on both counts. Notable here was that the client that had difficulties expressing himself however after full preparation by defence counsel he was able to give credible evidence before the jury which was obviously accepted to his benefit. The client was found not guilty on all charges, avoided jail, the stigma of a sexual assault conviction and was able to go on with his life.

R. v. B - Client was charged. A preliminary hearing was conducted in order to set up the foundations for cross-examination at trial. At trial before judge and jury the complainant was vigorously cross-examined and the client gave testimony on his own behalf which was accepted or at least left the jury with a reasonable doubt, resulting in an acquittal on all charges.

Representing cases on Robbery; Theft; Drugs Charges; Domestic and Serious Assaults, etc. forthcoming