We speak English, Punjabi & Hindi.
Success Stories
R. v. G.S.
The client was charged with Sexual Assault by a complainant that he met at a bar. The allegation was that he sexually assaulted her while she was too intoxicated to consent. After numerous discussions with the Crown and highlighting the inconsistencies in the complainants statement, as well as the deficiencies in the police investigation, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges.
R. v. N.T.
The client was charged with assaulting and kicking his former spouse in a historical incident. The court found that the Crown was unable to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt due to the inconsistencies highlighted in her evidence during cross-examination. Client was acquitted of all charges.
R. v. J.T.
The client was charged with multiple counts of Domestic Assault and one Count of Sexual Assault by an intimate partner. The allegations came up in the midst of a messy breakup. After a long and arduous cross-examination, the Court found that the complainant was not a credible or reliable witness. The client was acquitted of all charges by the Court.
R. v. M.S.
M.S. was charged with Impaired Operation as a result of single motor vehicle collision, having had a blood alcohol concentration over twice the legal limit. All charges were stayed due to a violation of her Charter protected rights due to the police videotaping her using the washroom in the cells.
R. v. S.S.
S.S. was charged with refusing to provide a sample of his breath. He was acquitted after trial as English was not his first language and the Judge found that the officers did not account for his lack of understanding of the English language while dealing with him.
R. v. C.C.
The client was charged with numerous incidents related to domestic assault. After a 3 week trial before a Judge and Jury, the Jury found C.C. not guilty on all counts.
R. v. K.D.
K.D. was facing sexual assault charges arising out of a short casual relationship. An important part of the evidence was a number of messages between the accused, his partner and the complainant. The messages were found to be admissible at trial after a successful section 278 application. K.D. was eventually found not guilty by a jury after a 4 day trial.
R. v. T.P.
T.P. was charged with sexual assault against a minor from a historical relationship. He was found not guilty by a jury after a two week trial.
R. v. R.H.
R.H. was charged with having care and control of a motor vehicle with BAC Over 80. After a trial, the Judge found that the police officers breached R.H.'s section 10(b) Charter Rights, leading to exclusion of evidence and an acquittal.
R. v. M.G.
M.G. was charged with importing a large quantity of methamphetamine from the U.S. into Canada and was looking at 7-10 years in custody if found guilty. After the frailties in the case were brought forward during the trial, the Crown decided to withdraw the charges.
R. v. P.B.
P.B. was charged with Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle and Operating a Motor Vehicle with a BAC Over 80. He was acquitted of all counts due to the police having breached his Charter rights during the investigation.
explore