|
R. v. S.
Mr. S was facing two charges of failing to comply with his recognizance. The allegations revolved around a breach of two bails due to his consumption of alcohol. Mr. S. was a struggling alcoholic who had gotten help for his addition after he was charged and feared going back to jail would affect his rehabilitation. As the trial approached, Mr. S. became increasingly nervous as he did not have a defence on the merits of the case itself. Looking carefully through disclosure, Ms. Bristow discovered that Mr. S. was not put on notice as to what documents were going to be introduced at trial, a requirement if the Crown wants to rely on certified copies of any documentary evidence. In order to prove the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, the Crown must prove that Mr. S. was on a bail at the time of the alleged offences, and that the conditions he alleged to have breached were conditions of those bails. Ms. Bristow vigorously argued that the notice provided was insufficient and that the documents should not be admitted into evidence. She argued that the Crown used an evidentiary shortcut to try to introduce the documents, and that if the Crown were going to do this, the rules must be complied with strictly. After careful consideration, the Court agreed with Ms. Bristow. While Mr. S. may have been guilty on the merits, there were hoops that the Crown had to jump through in order to prove its case. Ms. Bristow ensured that the Crown’s failure to do so was not overlooked. As such, Mr. S. was found not guilty of both of the charges and permitted to continue his rehabilitation in the free world. If you have a criminal matter and would like to contact Ms. Bristow for a free consultation, please contact her by phone at 416-598-5741 or email at [email protected] Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes
0 Comments
R. v. L.
My client was charged with failing to comply with his recognizance where it was alleged that Mr. L breached his residence condition. Per his bail conditions, Mr. L had to live with his surety and be amendable to the routine and discipline of the household. Mr. L had already been living with his surety for a number of months when he was told by his surety that the landlord was upset that Mr. L was staying there because he was not on the lease. Due to this, Mr. L made arrangements to stay elsewhere temporarily until the situation with the landlord had been worked out. He had every intention of returning to his surety’s address. The Crown made the argument that Mr. L should have obtained a bail variation because it was the Crown’s view that he was not complying with his residence condition. Further, the Crown argued because there was no end date to the absence, that was not in fact temporary. Ms. Bristow presented the court with an Ontario Court of Appeal case that supported her position of Mr. L's absence being only temporary given the circumstances. Ms. Bristow argued that although there was no specific end date to the absence, that Mr. L had every intention of returning to his surety's home. As a result, the court agreed with Ms. Bristow that the mens rea, or mental element, which is required in all criminal offences was not made out. Mr. L, whose underlying charges had already been withdrawn, was able to go home a free man with no criminal record. If you have a criminal matter and would like to contact Ms. Bristow for a free consultation, please contact her by phone at 416-598-5741 or email at [email protected] Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes R. v. N.
Mr. N was 47 years old and did not have a criminal record. He was charged with two counts of assault cause bodily harm against the mother of his child which dated back to 2001. He was also charged with a more recent assault, forcible entry and criminal harassment lasting from 2004-2013 against the same woman. Being charged alone put Mr. N into a deep depression so when he was acquitted of all of his charges it felt like the beginning of a very positive change in his life. Mr. N’s jury trial was a straight forward case; a he-said, she-said argument. The complainant was on the stand for two days. Ms. Bristow conducted a skilled and calculated cross-examination, diminishing the complainant’s credibility and reliability. By the end of it, Ms. Bristow was confident that the jury saw right through the complainant’s lies. Mr. N took the stand in his defence. When Ms. Bristow and Mr. N first began preparing for his trial Mr. N was nervous about testifying. However, after hours of preparation Mr. N’s hard work paid off as he was able to tell his side of the story in a relaxed and collected manner. The jury took less than two hours deliberating before they came back with a not guilty verdict on all give counts. Mr. N and his family were ecstatic to finally have this all behind them and have his life back. If you have a criminal matter and would like to contact Ms. Bristow for a free consultation, please contact her by phone at 416-598-5741 or email at [email protected] Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes R. v. K.
Ms. K was involved in a domestic incident with her husband during their first year of marriage. The police were called and Ms. K was arrested. Her husband suffered injuries to his neck, back, shoulders and torso. This was an incredibly stressful experience for Ms. K as she had never been in trouble with the law before. Despite this, as a result of the injuries and suspicion that Ms. K may have lied to the police about her husband threatening her with a sword the Crown was asking for a suspended sentence and probation on an early resolution which meant that Ms. K would have a criminal record. Through negotiation with the Crown, Ms. Bristow was able to obtain a better position wherein Ms. K would complete some counselling and then the Crown would agree to a conditional discharge. Ms. K was apprehensive about counselling because she did not think she was an angry person. However, she decided to give it a try and not only excelled in the program, she came out recommending that all people in relationships should take PARs counselling. Once finished with counselling, Ms. Bristow assisted Ms. K in obtaining a conditional discharge which meant that she will not have a criminal record. She had to enter a probation with very modest terms and once the probation was over it would turn into an absolute discharge and Ms. K would be deemed not to be convicted. In the end Ms. K was very happy to put everything behind her and continue working on her relationship with her husband. If you have a criminal matter and would like to contact Ms. Bristow for a free consultation, please contact her by phone at 416-598-5741 or email at [email protected] Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes |
AuthorHere, I post various success stories I have obtained for my clients in court. Archives
October 2019
Categories |
RSS Feed
