R. v. O.
Mr. O was a young Indigenous man with no criminal record, but who had obtained three (3) sets of outstanding charges in a short period of time. They were serious allegations involving an Assault Cause Bodily Harm against a complete stranger, and several breaches of court orders. He suffered from Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and addiction issues. Mr. O did not have many options when it came to someone coming forward to sign bail for him. The only person available was his mother, the person supervising him when he was alleged to have breached his bail conditions. Ms. Bristow put in a lot of time preparing his mother to testify to ensure the plan could satisfy that there was not a substantial likelihood Mr. O would commit further offences. Although it was a reverse onus situation, meaning the defence had to show cause why Mr. O should be released, after Mr. O’s mother testified, the Justice of the Peace told Ms. Bristow that he did not need to hear her submissions and released Mr. O back to his mother. It was clear that all of the hard work that Ms. Bristow went in to preparing the surety and ensuring the plan of supervision would be stronger paid off. Mr. O was able to go home for the holidays. 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 bristow@criminaltriallawyers.ca Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes
0 Comments
R. v. G.
Ms. G was charged with human trafficking and a number of other related offences against another woman. The case was about two simple-minded young women who were struggling financially and formed a friendship over a brief two week period. There was no question that this was a sad set of circumstances and some bad decisions were made. However, at the end of the day, Ms. G did not exploit her friend, nor did she persuade, control, direct or influence the complainant to do anything. Ms. Bristow was faced with significant hurdles with preparing Ms. G as she had a learning disability as well as mental health issues. However, all that meant for Ms. Bristow was that substantial, time consuming preparation with Ms. G before she testified. Ms. Bristow put in that time and fought hard for her client, securing an acquittal on all of her charges. 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 bristow@criminaltriallawyers.ca Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes R. v. K.
This was a domestic case between a husband and wife whose religious marriage lasted only a few months. After the divorce the complainant alleged that Mr. K had assaulted her numerous times throughout the relationship, sexually assaulted her and threatened to kill her son from a previous marriage. On first reading of the disclosure, Ms. Bristow saw all sorts of red flags with the complainant’s statement. For starters, she wrote a 23-page expose on Mr. K which clearly took a lot of time to put together. It looked more like a university project than a statement. It included details of the allegations, but more so it included details about all of the phone numbers Mr. K had ever called her from, his social insurance number and other personal information. In addition to the 23 pages, she included Mr. K’s driving record, print outs from websites of organizations he participated in and a photocopy of his driver’s license which she admittedly stole out of his wallet to copy. On the witness stand, the complainant’s evidence was all over the place. She was inconsistent, self-serving, evasive and exaggerated. The complainant’s son also testified, however, even his evidence seemed rehearsed and exaggerated and to Ms. Bristow it seemed clear that his mother told him some things to say. Next, it was the defence’s turn to call a case. Ms. Bristow spent many hours preparing Mr. K to testify and give his evidence in a clear and concise way. After a multi-day trial, the Court returned a verdict of not guilty on all counts. Mr. K was excited to finally move on with his life and have his record free from criminal convictions. 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 bristow@criminaltriallawyers.ca Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes R. v. H.
Mr. H was a young, 18-year old man charged with robbery. He had never been involved in the criminal justice system before. He was one six people alleged to have mugged another young man, taking his phone and money, among other things. Only three people were arrested. One of the culprits was a youth, who pled guilty early on. Another was an adult, like Mr. H, but he ended up disappearing and failed to answer to his charges. So there left Mr. H. It was clear to Ms. Bristow from the disclosure that the evidence against Mr. H was very weak. Despite that, the Crown wanted to continue to prosecute the case. It took three (3) judicial pre-trials to eventually convince the Crown that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction against Mr. H as identity was a significant issue. The charges were withdrawn and Mr. H was able to go on leading his life without a 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 bristow@criminaltriallawyers.ca Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes R. v. M.
Mr. M. was no stranger to the criminal justice system. He had previous convictions for robbery, firearms and other violent offences. Just because he had prior convictions, did not mean that he commit the current offences he was charged with. This time, Mr. M was charged with numerous firearms offences involving a home invasion and an allegation that he fired at the police from a 5th floor balcony. He was alleged to have been the main played in the armed robbery and had the worst criminal record amongst his thee co-accused. He was facing significant penitentiary time, upward of five (5) years; something that Mr. M was very nervous about since he had kept his nose clean for a number of years since his last jail sentence and was now working a steady job and providing for his young children. There were many pieces of evidence connecting Mr. M to the apartment at some point on the night in question. However, when looking closely at the evidence, Ms. Bristow was able to start unravelling the Crown’s theory. The complainant and witnesses in this case were all drug users, some were drug dealers, and most of them were high at the time of the alleged offence. There were significant inconsistencies between the versions of events, which caused great concern. Although the Crown’s case on its face sounded heinous, it is not proper to convict someone on poor evidence just so someone pays for the crime. The fact of the matter was that the evidence against Mr. M had substantial holes. In recognizing the issues in the case, the Crown made various offers for Mr. M to resolve his matter. Although its position began around five (5) years custody, the position eventually whittled down to a non-custodial one. However, Ms. Bristow could not, and would not advise Mr. M to plead guilty to something he did not do. Ms. Bristow negotiated with the Crown that Mr. M was willing to sign a peace bond not to contact the complainants in exchange for a withdrawal of the charges. The Crown finally agreed. Now Mr. M would not lose his job and would continue to remain in the community with his children. 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 bristow@criminaltriallawyers.ca Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes R. v. M.
Mr. M was facing the Criminal Code charge of Drive Disqualified. It would be his second offence involving the operation of a motor vehicle. As a result, if convicted Mr. M would not only be facing the possibility of jail but the sentence would include a mandatory driving prohibition for two years. The driving prohibition would pose a significant hardship on Mr. M as he is a truck driver, and already lost a year of work due to his license being suspended. There are many elements that the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order for a court to find an accused guilty of a Drive Disqualified charge. Some of the elements require the Crown to produce certain documentation. When Mr. M arrived at trial, the Crown attorney did not have the documentation they needed. The Crown’s position was that it had made efforts to get the documentation, and that if Mr. M wanted to go to trial, it would ask for an adjournment of the trial and the Crown was fairly certain the judge would grant it. As an incentive for Mr. M to resolve the matter, the Crown agreed not to ask for jail time if Mr. M plead guilty. Although Mr. M would avoid jail time, he would still have the two year driving prohibition that would directly impact his ability to get a job. Mr. M decided to take the risk and let the Crown ask for their adjournment. Ms. Bristow contested the adjournment request, reminding the court that this has not been an easy process for Mr. M, who had been on bail for over a year, causing his much stress and anxiety that was exacerbated by his mental health issues. Ms. Bristow reminded the court of the recent 11b (unreasonable delay) decision from the Supreme Court of Canada and pointed out that only two requests were made for the documentation during the one year period. The judge agreed that the Crown should have taken more steps when it learned that the documents were not ready by the “trial readiness” judicial pre-trial and denied the Crown’s adjournment. As a result, the Crown could not prove its case the charge was dismissed. 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 bristow@criminaltriallawyers.ca Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes R. v. L.
Mr. L was not a stranger to the criminal justice system. She had a lengthy criminal record for thefts, mainly to help support her gambling addiction. This time was different though. Ms. L was charged with assault with a weapon and uttering a death threat to a former acquaintance; the complainant was the ex-girlfriend of Mr. L’s friend. The allegations were that, unprovoked, Ms. L went up to the complainant, threatened her, pushed her into the wall and then struck her in the head three times with a beer bottle. The complainant’s testimony lacked some detail and was inconsistent with her police statement at points. She was also combative when Ms. Bristow was asking her questions. She tried to evade answering questions about her own personal experience as an accused person and rolling her eyes at one point. Her friend, an alleged witness to the altercation, also gave a statement to the police that was inconsistent in parts with the complainant’s evidence. Interestingly, her friend showed up to testify, but then disappeared on the break and did not return. Both the complainant and her friend had a criminal record for crimes of dishonesty. Ms. L did not testify in her defence, but two people who were also at the bar with her testified. Neither party saw an altercation between Ms. L and the complainant. One of them had been with Ms. L from the time they arrived at the bar until the time she had left. The judge found that Ms. Bristow had raised a reasonable doubt as to the allegations of assault with a weapon and uttering a death threat. He held that while his first reaction is that all of the witnesses appeared to be credible and reliable, it was clear that someone was lying. As the judge put it, it was cloudy as to what happened that night. However, that was all that was needed to secure an acquittal for Ms. L on both of the charges. 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 bristow@criminaltriallawyers.ca Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes R. v. B.
Mr. B was nervous after he was criminally charged for the first time with a series of frauds involving cell phone companies. He had never been in trouble with the law before. Every accused person has the right to know what evidence the Crown has against them. It is the Crown’s obligation to obtain any relevant information from the police that it is aware of and provide everything that is not clearly irrelevant to the accused, regardless of whether or not it is to be called at trial or if it is inculpatory or exculpatory. Fraud charges often involve a lot of paperwork and Ms. Bristow noticed that the initial disclosure was missing a lot of it. There was virtually no evidence on a number of the counts against Mr. B. Ms. Bristow made numerous requests to the Crown Attorney’s office for more disclosure. Bits and pieces trickled in but there were still major holes in the Crown’s case that Ms. Bristow discovered. The Crown Attorney was reluctant to pull the case, but Ms. Bristow did not budge and pressed for the disclosure that Mr. B was entitled to have before making any decisions about resolution or trial. Eventually, the Crown Attorney realized that the holes in the case were not going away. Ms. Bristow proposed a diversion position, whereby the Crown would withdraw the charges after Mr. B completed some up front work. As a result of Ms. B’s advocacy for her client, he was able to keep his job and remain without a 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 bristow@criminaltriallawyers.ca Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes R. v. S.B.
Mr. S.B. was one of 54 people who were charged as part of Project Traveller, an organized crime operation involving the importation of firearms from Detroit, Michigan to Windsor, Ontario and the subsequent sale of those firearms to members of the Dixon City Bloods in Toronto. Mr. S.B. was the only person who went to trial and was acquitted of all counts by a jury of his peers. Originally he faced eight firearms related charges. Two were dismissed after the preliminary inquiry and one more was withdrawn prior to trial following thoughtful negotiations between Ms. Bristow and the Crown attorney. Ms. Bristow ran a focused trial whereby much of the Crown’s case was not contested. The first half of the trial, the Crown called evidence. On its face, the case against Mr. S.B. appeared strong. However, the tables turned once Mr. S.B. hit the stand. He testified to what was actually happening on the dates in question. Mr. S.B. came across as a credible witness, and the jury saw that. It was not without practice, however. Testifying is not a regular occurrence for most people. Sitting in a witness box, in front of 12 of your peers, knowing that your liberty is at stake is even scarier. Ms. Bristow and Mr. S.B. worked together to prepare his testimony and ensure that he did not feel nervous or get clamed up and rather testified with confidence and candour. After Mr. S.B. testified, Ms. Bristow made a tactical move and called a former co-accused to the stand. He had a lengthy criminal record and had plead guilty to the same offences that Mr. S.B. was charged with. However, he corroborated much of Mr. S.B.’s testimony which gave a ring of truth to what Mr. S.B. said. After a day and a half of deliberations and only one question the jury acquitted Mr. S.B. of all of the charges. Mr. S.B. walked out of the courtroom with tears in his eyes because his nightmare was finally over. 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 bristow@criminaltriallawyers.ca Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes R. v. S.
Mr. S. has struggled with drug and alcohol addiction for many years. As a result, he had racked up charge after charge, all related to his addiction. Now Mr. S. already had a criminal record. It is rare that someone with a criminal record would be eligible for diversion, in other words a withdrawal of the charges in exchange for some up front work. Ms. Bristow, however, was able to craft a unique proposal for the Crown to consider permitting Mr. S. to complete a diversion program. The Crown agreed to the proposal and Mr. S. began addictions counselling. After some time, Mr. S. unfortunately re-offended. Often times, a Crown Attorney’s diversion offer would be off the table upon an accused person re-offending. However, Ms. Bristow. was able to negotiate with the Crown to permit Mr. S. to continue with his counselling to prove to the Crown why he deserved another chance. It took some time, but Mr. S. completed his up front work and then did some community service hours as part of the diversion program. Now Mr. S. has 5 fewer charges he has to worry about on his criminal record. Even better, he is well on the road to sobriety. 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 bristow@criminaltriallawyers.ca 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 |