Our client was charged with numerous counts relating to possession and discharge of a firearm. Accused found in a backyard with a firearm on the ground within reach of his hand. Accused had been shot and there was clear evidence that there had been a gunfight in the neighbouring backyard. Client acquitted based on issues with respect to proof of possession and credibility and reliability issues of a police officer’s observations of the accused and firearm.
R v S. B. 2021
Our client was charged with weapons trafficking, conspiracy to commit an indictable offence, and participation in activities of a criminal organization. After a month long trial, represented in court by partner Dirk Derstine, our client was acquitted of all charges.
R v M. I. 2021
Our client was charged with discharge a restricted firearm, possession of a loaded firearm, possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized, and possession of a weapon. Represented by partner Jennifer Penman during an eight day trial, our client was ultimately acquitted of all counts during the Superior Court judgement.
R v S. M. 2021
Counsel Laura Remigio represented our client at trial with charges of cocaine and marijuana. Our client was acquitted of all charges after we highlighted 7 different Charter breaches and had evidence excluded during the ten day trial at Superior Court.
R v Christopher Husbands 2020
Our client was charged with multiple counts of first-degree murder, but was ultimately acquitted after a vigorous defence by Derstine Penman lawyers. “In a stunning verdict, a jury acquitted the 30-year-old of two counts of second-degree murder — in favour of convictions of the lesser offence of manslaughter…”
Accused charged with four counts of sexual assault against his common law partner. There were issues litigated with respect to prior sexual history and the new s. 276 regime. There were significant credibility issues of the complaint raised through cross-examination. W.B. was acquitted of all charges.
R v N.O. 2019
Our client faced serious jail time on the charges of robbery, weapons dangerous, assault with a weapon, breach of recognizance, break and enter into a dwelling, and possession of burglary tools. With special thanks to PI Jim Marlow’s expertise during the service a difficult subpoena, all charges were withdrawn during the motions stage before commencing trial.
Our client was accused of taking part in a gunpoint robbery at a hotel. We succeeded in having our client’s committal for trial quashed after bringing a certiorari application in which we highlighted the frailties in identification evidence.
Client charged with aggravated assault and related firearms charges after a shooting outside a nightclub in Toronto. The police sought and used a fingerprint obtained from the accused when he was a youth in an attempt to make a comparison to a print found on the firearm. We brought a s. 8 Charter application to challenge the police conduct in unlawfully using a fingerprint that was obtained under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The application was granted, the evidence was excluded and our client was found not guilty of all charges.
R. v. O. 2016
Our client was charged with first degree murder as a result of a confession obtained through a Mr. Big operation. After a lengthy trial, our client was acquitted of all charges.
R. v. G. 2016
Our client was charged with murder in a cold case where advances in forensic technology allowed police to locate G.’s fingerprints and DNA at the scene of the homicide. At trial, we convinced the judge to take the exceptional step of staying the proceedings (the functional equivalent of an acquittal) due to evidence lost or destroyed by the police.
Our client was charged with first degree murder after his 17 year old daughter’s body was found in a suitcase which had been set on fire. We argued that her client’s Charter rights were violated during police interviews. The judge agreed and ruled that the contents of these interviews should be excluded from trial. See Christie Blatchford’s article in the National Post here.
Our client was charged and convicted of trafficking in firearms, for which there was a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. We successfully argued that the mandatory minimum breached s. 12 of the Charter and the section was struck down.
Our client was charged with possession of child pornography. It was argued that police violated our client’s Charterrights, including his right to a reasonable expectation of privacy when they improperly seized his computer. Her advocacy resulted in the exclusion of key evidence.
Our client was charged with 17 offences including human trafficking and living off the avails of prostitution. We successfully showed that police fabricated evidence against our client and testified falsely about it. As a result, all 17 charges were stayed by the Court. This was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
The accused was accused of numerous charges including assaulting his girlfriend and sexually assaulting his friend. At trial, we successfully convinced the judge that client was not guilty of sexual assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, or uttering death threats.
R v Bernard 2008 CanLII 9607
Our client was alleged to have robbed a transit kiosk of over $27,000 worth of cash and transit property. He was charged with theft, use of an imitation firearm while committing theft, and having his face masked while committing an offence. Our defence led to her client’s acquittal of all charges.
R v S.G. 2007 O.J. No. 2185
This is a case where we safeguarded our client’s right to a fair trial while defending him against allegations of sexual assault. The Crown refused to call the complainant’s mother despite making representations to the defence and Jury that she would do so. Counsel convinced the Judge that this would be unfair to the defence. As a result, the Judge called the complainant’s mother as a witness, allowing counsel to cross-examine her.
R v Beaucage 2000 O.J. No. 4255
The client was charged with first-degree murder. We successfully argued that the victim’s pre-death statements about arguments with her client were not reliable enough to be admitted at trial.