R. v. S.
Mr. S was in an on-again off-again relationship with a woman for approximately three years. The woman accused Mr. S of assaulting her, threatening her and breaking her property on numerous occasions over a one-week period. It was clear to Ms. Bristow that there were issues of jealousy and anger on the part of the complainant as a result of Mr. S being with another woman. Through Ms. Bristow’s cross-examination of the complainant, it became obvious that there were significant differences between what she told the police and her testimony. Due to Ms. Bristow’s effective cross-examination, the defence decided not to have Mr. S. testify. As such, the complainant, Mr. S’s girlfriend, was the only witness at trial. While the complainant testified that she had simply exaggerated the events, in submissions, Ms. Bristow pointed out that they were not exaggerations, rather they were bold faced lies. The judge found the the complainant's explanation for why her version of events changed was troubling. As a result of Ms. Bristow's advocacy, Mr. S was acquitted of all seven charges before the court. 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. L.
Mr. L was on bail for dangerous charges in Barrie. While on bail, Mr. L was charged with breaching his probation and possession of stolen property. Ms. B facilitated Mr. L in turning himself into the police. He was very nervous about going back to jail. Ms. B organized a plan of release so that Mr. L would be prepared for a bail hearing the same day he turned himself in. Despite the fact that it was the defence onus to show cause why Mr. L should be released, Ms. B was able to secure a release for Mr. L. He was released to the same surety, which pleased Mr. L as the other option was to send him to a city an hour away with a new surety. This would have made things very difficult for Mr. L to get to work. Due to Ms. B’s efforts, Mr. L was able to surrender himself and go home the same day without having to spend a night in jail. R. v. G.
Ms. G was involved in the adult entertainment industry and was charged with serious offences involving human trafficking, forcible confinement and living off the avails etc. She had no family support and no friends who were able to help her with bail. Despite this, Ms. G wanted to turn herself in to the police and prayed that she would get bail. Ms. Bristow assisted Ms. G in surrendering herself in order to have her bail hearing the same day. Ms. Bristow spoke with two proposed sureties, both of whom had only known Ms. G a few months. Ordinarily, someone who has not known an accused for very long would not make a good surety. However, Ms. Bristow spent time preparing the sureties and developing a plan of supervision that would address the court’s concerns. She also prepared Ms. G, advising her of what she could do prior to her surrender to put her in the best possible position for release. The preparation by all parties paid off as Ms. Bristow proposed a form of release that satisfied the Crown Attorney who ultimately consented to her release. As a result, Ms. G was able to go home the same evening she turned herself in. 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 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 bristow@criminaltriallawyers.ca Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes 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 bristow@criminaltriallawyers.ca 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 bristow@criminaltriallawyers.ca 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 bristow@criminaltriallawyers.ca Note: Past successes do not guarantee future successes R. v. SY
Mr. SY was charged with assault, mischief and failing to comply with probation against a domestic partner. He was in custody on these charges because he did not have any potential sureties. Ms. Bristow moved the matter along as quick as possible and set an early trial date a few months down the road. At the trial, the Crown advised that the police had difficulty locating the complainant and would be requesting an adjournment to locate her. The other option, the crown attorney suggested, was resolving his matter and pleading guilty. Mr. SY maintained his innocence and did not want to plead guilty, but was concerned about remaining in custody if the matter was adjourned. Mr. SY had faith in Ms. Bristow who vehemently contested the adjournment request by the crown attorney. Mr. Bristow, in anticipation of this application was prepared with case law. Highlighting numerous reasons why there was only a hope that the complainant would turn up, and it would be prejudicial for Mr. SY to remain in custody while the complainant held the court hostage. After Ms. Bristow’s argument, there was no doubt in her mind that the judge would agree. Ms. Bristow was right and the judge dismissed the adjournment application. As a result, the crown attorney had no choice but to withdraw the charges. Mr. SY was released from the prisoner’s box and was able to go home. 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.
Ms. H was charged with a series of charges relating to drug possession for the purpose of trafficking and conspiracy to traffic. She was the subject of surveillance and appeared to be carrying a large empty bag into an apartment and then leaving with it full. While the Crown’s case appeared to be strong at the bail stage, Ms. H. still benefits from the presumption of innocence until convicted. Ms. B worked with Ms. H’s daughter and friend to perfect a plan of supervision. Ms. H’s daughter was only (21) twenty-one years old and neither her nor her mother’s friend had ever been sureties before. Ms. B. made sure that both sureties were 100% clear on their roles and duties to the court, knowing that the Crown may have concern with the daughter’s age. After speaking with the sureties, the Crown was confident in their capabilities and consented to Ms. H’s release, who was able to return home and continue operating the store she owned. 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 & T
Lisa Bristow and Jillian Carrington were working together on a case coming out of Parry Sound, Ontario. Their clients were each facing six charges related to the possession and production of marijuana and marijuana resin. While it was clear that there was no defence to three of the charges, the Crown was unwilling to negotiate a reasonable resolution agreement. As such, both of our clients decided to take the matter to trial, knowing that they would be found guilty on three of the six charges. The trial by jury lasted two weeks wherein Ms. Bristow and Ms. Carrington presented a joint defence that Mr. B and Mr. T grew marijuana and made marijuana resin but were doing it solely for personal use. Ms. Bristow and Ms. Carrington worked countless hours together finding all possible discrepancies and issues in each of the witnesses notes and testimony that would assist in the theory of the defence. Ms. Bristow and Ms. Carrington also prepared Mr. B to testify on behalf of the defence to tell his and Mr. T’s side of the story. Mr. B testified with confidence and held up under a skilled cross-examination. After all of the evidence was presented, the jury began deliberations. When they returned a verdict, Mr. B and Mr. T were acquitted of two of the three charges that the defence was contesting; those charges were possession for the purpose of trafficking marijuana resin and possession of the proceeds of crime. Mr. B and Mr. T were happy with the result as they knew winning the possession for the purpose of trafficking marijuana was a long shot. Despite the conviction on the one charge, Ms. Bristow and Ms. Carrington successfully knocked out two of the charges which would have surely increased Mr. B and Mr. T’s sentence. As a result, Mr. B and Mr. T were able to have all of the money seized returned to them and the $15,000 generator that they intended to resell. |
AuthorHere, I post various success stories I have obtained for my clients in court. Archives
October 2019
Categories |