Homicide Bail - R v ESS, 2022 ONCA 222:
Mr. SS was charged with homicide. Counsel applied for him to be released from custody to await his trial on an exceptionally strong plan. The Superior Court Judge detained Mr. SS on the basis that his sureties would not be able to control him if he was released. Counsel appealed this to the Court of Appeal for Ontario where the Chief Justice of Ontario agreed that the Superior Court Judge has made an error. Mr. SS was released to be supervised in the community while awaiting his trial for a homicide.
Sexual Assault Trial - R v GJ, 2022 ONSC:
Mr. GJ was alleged to have sexually assaulted a woman three times in one evening. Mr. GJ elected to have this case tried in front of a jury. The Crown called one witness, and Mr. GJ testified in his own defence. The complainant was cross-examined by James Coulter over the course of two days. He took her and the jury through several inconsistencies that she attempted to minimize or attribute to a misstatement. Counsel identified each of the problems with the complainant’s evidence in a concise and thoughtful closing address. After an 8-day trial, and a half day of deliberation, the jury unanimously chose to acquit Mr. GJ, sparing him from a sentence starting at 3- to 5-years in custody.
Impaired Driving Trial - R v RH, [2023] OJ NO 1105:
Mr. RH was alleged to have operated a motor vehicle while he was impaired by a drug. The trial judge found that the police conducted a proper investigation after an accident had occurred. Counsel argued that the police overstepped their legal rights when they unlawfully detained Mr. RH and held him for several hours longer than they reasonably needed to. Counsel’s cross-examination of the Duty Sergeant demonstrated how ambivalent the police were with respect to the rights of people in their custody. The Court determined that Mr. RH’s rights to be free from arbitrary detention under section 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were breached and excluded all of the evidence against him. Mr. RH was acquitted and avoided a criminal record and driving suspension.
Internet Child-Offence Trial - R v MS, 2022 ONCJ 539:
The client was the subject of a police sting operation initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the United States, and assisted by the Ontario Provincial Police. The offence alleged was ‘agreeing or arranging to commit an offence against a child’, contrary to section 172.2 of the Criminal Code. Defence counsel argued that the communications between the client and the FBI did not amount to an agreement or an arrangement. The Court agreed with defence counsel and found that the Crown failed to prove the offence because there was no intent to arrange the alleged offences. Mr. MS avoided a penitentiary sentence and a criminal record.
Impaired Driving Trial - R v MS, [2022] OJ No 5955:
The client was in the midst of a tumultuous living situation and left their home after having consumed several alcoholic beverages. The client then returned home through a ride share program, and slept in their car in their parking spot. The police attended and arrested her for having care and control of a vehicle while impaired by alcohol, contrary to section 320.14 of the Criminal Code. Counsel argued that the client was not ‘operating’ the vehicle, and therefore could not have committed the offence. The Court agreed and acquitted the client.
Drug Trafficking and Firearm Trial - R v MM, 2023 ONCJ [Unreported]:
A vehicle driven by an unknown occupant was seen by the police travelling at over 150 km/h. They attempted to conduct a traffic stop, but the driver evaded them. Over an hour later the police received a tip from a member of the public about the possibility of that car being parked on a private residence. The police conducted a search of the outside property, then inside the residence - all without a warrant. Fentanyl, cocaine, and firearms were alleged to have been found in the residence. Defence counsel cross-examined the police witnesses at a preliminary inquiry, where the Provincial Court Judge expressed concerns about the police actions. 19-days of trial were set. Defence counsel filed extensive written materials meticulously detailing how the police breached sections 8, 9, 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to the house occupants. The Crown Attorney’s prosecuting the case withdrew all charges after reviewing the materials filed by Mr. Coulter. Mr. MM was spared 6- to 8- years of custody in a Federal penitentiary.
Proceeds of Crime Trial - R v MB, 2021 ONSC 7312; R v MB, 2022 ONSC 1762:
Mr. MB lived in a home that the police wanted to get into to search for drugs and money. The police did not have evidence that drugs and money would be found in the home. They then used the possibility of a firearm being found in the home to get a warrant to enter the property. Defence counsel argued to quash the warrant and exclude the evidence. The police should not have been permitted to search in certain parts of the property, and because the police acted in such an improper manner that the police ought not to have been given permission to enter the property and seize potential evidence. The Court agreed that the police acted improperly by using the warrant as a ‘Trojan Horse’ to search for drugs and money, rather than a firearm. Over $1-million dollars and hundreds of thousands of dollars in other property were excluded from trial because of the improper police conduct. Mr. MB was acquitted.