R v D.

Our client was charged with breaching an Emergency Protection Order (EPO)—a serious allegation that can carry significant legal and personal consequences. After reviewing the disclosure and speaking with our client, we immediately identified critical deficiencies in the Crown’s case.

Based on the available evidence and our client’s account of the events, it was clear that the Crown would be unable to establish a reasonable likelihood of conviction. We set the matter down for trial to ensure that our client’s rights were fully protected and that the case would be properly tested in court.

Before the trial date, the Crown reassessed the file in light of the evidentiary issues we had raised and withdrew the charge. Our client was spared the stress and uncertainty of a trial and emerged from the process without a criminal record.

The client was charged with assault following an incident outside a McDonald’s in which police alleged he participated with others in a group assault of another man. Although the Crown relied heavily on video evidence, a careful review revealed that the footage did not show the alleged assault, and there were additional weaknesses in the Crown’s case. The matter was set for trial. On the morning of trial, we formally brought these deficiencies to the Crown’s attention. After reassessing the evidence and the likelihood of securing a conviction, the Crown agreed to resolve the matter by way of a peace bond, resulting in no criminal conviction and avoiding the risks and consequences of a trial.

R v O.

Our client was charged with assault arising from an allegation involving her former partner. The allegation stemmed from a dispute between the client and her ex-boyfriend. No trial was required, and the matter proceeded toward resolution.

The Crown sought a criminal conviction, but we focused on securing a non-conviction outcome and prepared detailed sentencing submissions addressing both the circumstances of the offence and the client’s personal background. We emphasized the client’s lack of prior criminal record, her strong prospects for rehabilitation, and the disproportionate impact a conviction would have on her future. In particular, defence submissions highlighted the client’s career goals, and how a criminal record would jeopardize her ability to pursue professional education and licensing.

The Court accepted the defence position and granted a conditional discharge, which allowed the client to avoid a criminal conviction.

R v L.

Our client was charged with aggravated assault arising from allegations involving serious injuries to his infant son. The case involved allegations that the infant had suffered severe injuries consistent with abusive head trauma, sometimes referred to as shaken baby syndrome. Given the seriousness of the allegations, the potential consequences included a lengthy jail sentence.

We undertook an intensive and multi-layered defence. First, we retained an independent medical expert to conduct a detailed review of the Crown’s medical evidence and expert opinion. This included close scrutiny of the assumptions, methodology, and conclusions underlying the Crown’s theory of causation. Second, we conducted extensive legal and scientific research into the medical literature concerning shaken baby syndrome and alternative explanations for the injuries alleged. This research informed both expert consultation and litigation strategy. Third, we filed a comprehensive Charter notice alleging infringements of the client’s right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter, identifying serious concerns with the manner in which police obtained evidence during the investigation.

Together, these steps significantly altered the risk profile of the prosecution and strengthened the defence position. Following sustained negotiations, the matter was resolved on terms that allowed the client to avoid a jail sentence. Given the gravity of the allegations and the sentencing exposure, this represented a significant and meaningful result. The client was able to move forward without incarceration and with a clear understanding that his constitutional rights had been forcefully asserted.

R v E.

Our client was charged with assault arising from an alleged road-rage incident. The allegation stemmed from a confrontation between drivers following a traffic dispute. The incident was captured on video and formed a central part of the Crown’s case. In light of the video evidence, the client instructed us to pursue a resolution without trial.

Although the Crown was seeking a lengthy jail sentence, we focused on a strategic resolution and prepared comprehensive sentencing submissions tailored to the client’s personal circumstances and the specific facts of the incident.

Counsel emphasized proportionality, restraint, and the full range of available sentencing options, while addressing the aggravating features relied on by the Crown. Particular attention was paid to the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction and the availability of rehabilitative, non-custodial outcomes. Our submissions were persuasive and the Court granted our client a conditional discharge. As a result, the client avoided a criminal conviction and no jail sentence was imposed.

R v M.

Our client was charged with assault causing bodily harm arising from an incident at a party where alcohol was involved and the evidence was contested. Through careful preparation, identification of inconsistencies in the Crown’s case, and strategic use of defence witness evidence, we exposed significant weaknesses in the prosecution’s case. The matter was ultimately resolved by way of a conditional discharge, allowing the client to avoid a criminal conviction and move forward without a permanent criminal record.

R v C.

Our client was charged with domestic assault arising from a highly contentious family dispute and faced the risk of a criminal conviction with serious personal and professional consequences. After careful preparation and the commencement of trial, effective cross-examination and strategic advocacy exposed weaknesses in the Crown’s case, leading to a resolution in which the charges were withdrawn pursuant to a peace bond after the first day of trial. This outcome allowed our client to avoid a criminal record while bringing the matter to a controlled and final resolution.

R v R.

Our client was charged with assault, with his father named as the complainant. From the outset, our client adamantly denied any wrongdoing and elected to exercise his right to a full trial.

At trial, the complainant’s evidence was subjected to vigorous and detailed cross-examination, exposing significant reliability and credibility concerns. We methodically tested the Crown’s case, highlighting gaps, inconsistencies, and the absence of independent corroborating evidence.

After hearing all of the evidence, the Court found that the Crown failed to meet its burden of establishing proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and our client was fully acquitted.

This case illustrates the importance of a fearless trial defence and rigorous cross-examination, particularly in emotionally charged family disputes, where allegations alone are not proof.

R v B.

Our client was charged with assault causing bodily harm following a domestic dispute. The case depended entirely on credibility, with no independent witnesses and no physical evidence linking the injury to an assault.

Through vigorous and detailed cross-examination, we exposed serious reliability concerns in the complainant’s testimony, including delayed reporting, inconsistent accounts of how the injury occurred, and the volatile nature of the relationship. We also highlighted the absence of any medical or forensic evidence confirming an assault.

After a contested trial, the Court found that the Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and the client was fully acquitted