SUCCESSES

DRINKING AND DRIVING CASES

R v. R.B.
Client was charged with Over 80 milligrams Operation. After successful resolution discussions with the Crown, the Criminal Code charge was withdrawn in exchange for a plea of guilty to a charge of Careless Driving Under the Highway Traffic Act. The client avoided getting a criminal record.

R v. B.B.
Client was charged with Over 80 milligrams Operation. On a trial date in the face of a Charter application for breach of the client’s rights to not be detained arbitrarily and searched unlawfully the Crown invited the Court to dismiss the charge against the Applicant. The client avoided getting a criminal record.

R v. B.L.
Client was charged with Impaired and Over 80 milligrams Operation. After successful resolution discussions with the Crown, the Criminal Code charge was withdrawn in exchange for a plea of guilty to a charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. The client avoided getting a criminal record.

R v. S. S.
Client was charged with Over 80 milligrams Operation. A Charter application seeking an exclusion of breath samples for a breach of the client’s rights to privacy was granted. The trial judge agreed that the police filming of the client in the cells on numerous occasions while urinating amounted to a breach of his rights. The Crown has appealed the decision to exclude the breath samples to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The appeal has not yet been heard.

R v. M.M
Client was charged with Refusing to Provide a breath sample into an Approved Screening Device. After a large number of court appearances without basic disclosure being provided and subsequent resolution discussions with the Crown the Criminal Code charge was withdrawn.

R v. A.R.
Client was charged with Over 80 milligrams Operation. After successful resolution discussions with the Crown, the Criminal Code charge was withdrawn.

R v. D. B.
Client was charged with Impaired and Over 80 milligrams Operation. In the face of a Charter application for a stay of proceedings for a breach of the client’s right to a speedy trial, both charges were withdrawn after the first trial date in exchange for a plea of guilty to a charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act. The Client avoided getting a criminal record and kept his driver’s license.

R v. T.B.
Client was charged with Refusing to Provide a Sample into an Approved Screening Device. At trial the charge was dismissed following counsel’s successful cross-examination of the arresting officer in exchange for a plea of guilty to a charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine. The Client avoided getting a criminal record and kept his driver’s license.

R v. A.S.
Client was charged with Refusing to Provide a Sample into an Approved Screening Device. The charge was withdrawn by the Crown after successful resolution discussions. The Client entered a plea of guilty to a charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine. He avoided getting a criminal record and kept his driver’s license.

R v. A.L.
Client was charged with Over 80 milligrams Operation. The client’s readings were taken outside two hours, and the Crown could not produce the toxicologist to attend on the first trial date. In the face of an anticipated Charter application for stay of proceedings for a breach of the client’s right to a speedy trial, the charge was withdrawn by the Crown.

R v. D.M.
Client was charged with Refusing to Provide a Sample into an Approved Screening Device. Counsel insisted that the Crown disclose all the relevant evidence in the case. The Crown was unable to provide all the relevant evidence because it had been lost. In the face of a Charter application for a breach of his Charter right to make full answer and defence, the charge was withdrawn on the trial date due to the lost evidence.

R v. T.S.
Client was charged with impaired driving and driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. He was involved in an accident and his breath readings were more than three times the legal limit. The Crown had serious difficulties proving the identity of the operator of the vehicle, and as a result the charge was withdrawn on the trial date.

R v. G.P.
Client was charged with impaired driving and driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. The Crown failed to provide disclosure of maintenance records of the breath machine to counsel in a timely fashion. The case had to be postponed and an early trial date could not be secured. In the face of a Charter application for a breach of the Client’s Charter right to a speedy trial, the charges were withdrawn by the Crown on the trial date in exchange for a plea of guilty to a charge of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine. The Client avoided getting a criminal record and kept his driver’s license.

R v. R. D.
Client was charged with impaired driving and driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. He hit a parked car in his neighborhood and fled the scene. He was passed out on his lawn when the police arrived on scene. The Client was taken to the police station and strip searched. The trial judge found that the client was subjected to an illegal strip search and that his Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure were violated.

The Client’s Charter application for a stay of proceedings was allowed.

R v. L.A.
Client was charged with driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. There was a significant delay in bringing the roadside screening device to the scene. Upon notice being given to the Crown, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge on the trial date in exchange for a guilty plea to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine. The Client avoided getting a criminal record and kept his driver’s license.

R v. P.S.
Client was charged with driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. The Client could not speak fluent English. The trial judge found that his Charter right to speak to counsel in his own language (Tamil) on arrest was violated. The breath readings were excluded leaving the Crown with no further evidence and the charge was dismissed.

R v. N.S.
Client was charged with driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level and possession of cocaine. The client was strip searched at the police station. The trial judge found that because the door was left ajar and the client was left completely naked during the search his Charter rights against an unreasonable search and seizure were violated. The Client’s Charter application for a stay of proceedings was allowed.

R v. C.T.
Client was charged with impaired driving and driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. The Client’s Charter application for a stay of proceedings due to a breach of his right to a speedy trial was allowed.

R v. J.V.
Client was charged with driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. The Client’s Charter application for a stay of proceedings due to a breach of his right to a speedy trial was allowed.

DOMESTIC ASSAULT CASES

R v. G.V.
The Clients were charged with Assault with a Weapon and Theft under. During resolution discussions with the Crown, counsel provided the Crown with a wealth of information that demonstrated that the complainant was not a credible witness. The Crown withdrew the charges.

R v. P.H.
The Client was charged with Assault, Threatening Death and Failing to Comply with his bail. During resolution discussions with the Crown, counsel provided the Crown with information obtained from other eye-witnesses with whom she had interviewed that seriously undermined the strength of the Crown’s case. The Crown withdrew the charges.

R v. M.G.
Client was charged with Assault Bodily Harm. On the second day of trial after a successful cross-examination of the complainant, the Crown withdrew the charge against the Client in exchange for the Client entering into a Peace Bond.

R v. T.K.
Client was charged with a Domestic Assault and related offences. All charges were withdrawn by the Crown after successful resolution discussions.

R v. T.M.
Client was charged with Domestic Assault , Threatening and Failing to Comply offences. During resolution discussions counsel suggested that the client attend some counseling. and complete some community service work. All charges were subsequently withdrawn by the Crown.

R v. V.M.
Client was charged with a serious Domestic Assault and related offences. All charges were withdrawn by the Crown after successful resolution discussions and the client’s completion of anger management counseling

Drug Offence Cases

R v. A.C.
Client and two others were charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking. After a large number of court dates and the failure of the Crown to provide full disclosure the charges were withdrawn at the request of the Crown.

R v. O.A.
Client and his co-defendants were charged with trafficking in a large amount of cocaine. Following a trial in the Superior Court of Justice the charges were stayed because the police violated the client’s Charter right to be free unreasonable search and seizure due to the warrant less search of his van.

R v. G.H.
Client was charged with Producing Marihuana in a large outdoor grow operation. During resolution discussions counsel pointed out that the client was not the home-owner but a visitor to the house. Ultimately, the charges were withdrawn by the Crown.

R.v. T.V.
Client was charged along with a co-defendant with Producing Marihuana and other drug-related offences. After a month long trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, the client was acquitted of all charges.

Theft, Fraud, Robbery and Other Offences

R v. T. G.

The Client was charged with aggravated assault but the charge was upgraded to manslaughter. The case proceeded to a preliminary hearing and the Crown called a number of witnesses who were present at the time of the altercation between the parties. At the Ontario Superior Court of Justice the Crown withdrew the charge.

R v. J.W.
The Client was charged with a number of counts of Theft of various iPhones from different passengers on the Toronto subway. After resolution discussions with the Crown, the Crown agreed to withdraw all the charges after the client completed some counseling.

R v. T.S.
The Client was charged with Robbery of an iPhone He also had an unfortunate altercation with a police services dog. In the face of an anticipated application to stay the proceedings for a breach of the client’s Charter rights, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge after the client completed some counseling.

R v. M.C.
The Client was charged with Robbery of an iPhone with others. Counsel persuaded the Crown that the case against her client was not as strong as against the co-defendants. The Crown withdrew the charge against the client after he completed some counseling.

R v. M.Y.
Client was charged with an attempted bank robbery where it was alleged he was the driver of the getaway car. After extensive resolution discussions the Crown withdrew the Robbery charge in exchange for the client entering a plea of guilty to lesser charges of assault and attempt theft. The Client was sentenced to house arrest and avoided serving his sentence in a real jail.

R v. R. C.
Client was charged with a Sexual Assault and Assault with a weapon. The Crown’s case was vigorously challenged at trial in the Superior Court of Justice and the Client was acquitted of all charges.

R v. P. S.
The Client was charged with Mortgage Fraud. All charges were withdrawn by the Crown following a judicial pre-trial after counsel pointed out the potential Charter violations involved in the warrant less search of her client’s vehicle which produced the documents that formed the basis for the charge.

R v. C.L.
Client was charged with a violent purse snatching in Markham. On arrest the client had an altercation with a police services dog. On sentencing the trial judge found that situation warranted a mitigated sentence and the client avoided a lengthy jail sentence and was placed on probation.

R v. J.L.
The Client was charged with Sexual Assault on two fellow high school students. Counsel arranged to get the client some counseling, and he agreed to enter into a Peace Bond. The charges were then withdrawn by the Crown.

CONTACT

PRACTICE AREAS

drinking and driving

domestic assault

theft & fraud

drug offences

youth court cases

OFFICES

Scarborough Office

1911 Eglinton Avenue. East, Unit 3B

Scarborough, Ontario M1L 2L6

Rated 5./5 based on 5 customer reviews
Michelle Johal Criminal Lawyer
1911 Eglinton Avenue. East, Unit 3B Scarborough, ON M1L 2L6
Phone: 416.824.3584 URL of Map