R. v. B & T
On January 10, 2014, B and T were seeking a review in the Superior Court of Justice of their detention order. B and T were charged with production of marijuana etc. The Crown reminded the court that these accused must show why their continued detention was not necessary as they were looking at a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Described as a million dollar grow operation, the Crown submit that neither party should be released unless a significant cash deposit was made. In his eyes, a significant amount was 50-75% of each surety’s life savings. Neither Mr. B, nor Mr. T had a criminal record. Their sureties were of limited means and unable to make cash deposits. Both accused had zero savings, neither party having worked in years. Mr. B’s surety was his sister, a single mother, was willing to pledge $2,000 but the Crown wanted $15,000 as she had equity in her home. Over the lunch break, Mr. B’s sister mulled it over and decided she would be willing to pledge $15,000 as she had confidence in her brother. This still was not enough for the Crown to consent to Mr. B’s release, as he wanted a cash deposit. This was not possible because Mr. B’s sister lived pay cheque to pay cheque and the only equity she had was in her home. Mr. T’s surety, a long-time family friend, was retired, supporting her adult son and living off a small pension and RRSP. This was her third trip to run the bail hearing, which was three hours away from her home. Each time she had to pay someone to drive her as she had no car. She was only able to pledge $500 with no cash deposit as she would spend all of her pension and monthly RRSP cheque on rent and living expenses for her and her son. Due to the fact that she was retired and the money in her RRSP slowly diminished each month and she would pay a hefty penatly if she took more money out sooner. Ms. Carrington and Ms. Bristow fought tooth and nail with the Crown whose position on a cash deposit was in their eyes was unreasonable in the circumstances. The Crown called these men are surge to society, and submit that they had not shown cause as to why they should be released. Based on the fact the neither accused had ties to the community, the plan of supervision for Mr. B was insufficient and that the community be shocked if these men were released in the community with no cash deposits. The judge agreed with both Ms. Carrington and Ms. Bristow that Mr. B and Mr. T had strong ties to the community as each were born and raised in Ontario and neither had money to anywhere else. Mr. T in fact has a daughter in the area. Justice Wilcox released both accused on bail with no cash deposits and with no cash deposits and with no onerous conditions – simply to live with their surety to possess drugs and to seek and maintain employment and/or education.
0 Comments
R. v. G.
Mr. G. was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and possession of marijuana. C.G. was worried about getting bail because he only had one possible surety; a much younger pregnant girlfriend, who had never been a surety before. Although the surety was nervous as she had never had to take the stand before, due to extensive preparation with Ms. Bristow, the surety testified with confidence and held up exceptionally well during a tough cross-examination by the Crown. The Crown’s submissions focussed on the fact that the surety was young and in-experienced as a surety, and that while she meant well, the Crown had doubts that she would be able to control Mr. G. Crown counsel used Mr. G’s lengthy criminal record for violence, including multiple domestic assault convictions, and failing to comply with court orders to support her argument. On the other hand, Ms. Bristow raised the fact that Mr. G. did not have any convictions for drug offences. In addition, the police synopsis – which is all the Court really knew about the case at the bail hearing – indicated that Mr. G. had no drugs on him, and that there were four other people who were in the room where the drugs were found. Thus, there were certainly weaknesses in the case, and it should lean more towards releasing Mr. G. than detaining him in custody. While Mr. G.’s prior record would cause some concern that he may commit further offences while out on bail, Ms. Bristow put up a good surety who has helped Mr. G. stay out of trouble since they had been together. The Court agreed with Ms. Bristow’s submissions, and released Mr. G. to his girlfriend. Mr. G. was incredibly grateful as he hadn’t been granted bail on any of his previous charges in years. 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 MULTIPLE CHARGES STAYED AFTER CHARTER APPLICATION ALLEGING MULTIPLE CHARTER BREACHES IS FILED11/23/2012 R. v. M.
Three men, including our client were walking away from a building in the direction of four police officers. The men were stopped, for no apparent reason, and separated. One officer questioned our client, and after the brief interaction it was determined that our client was under the influence of alcohol. The officer placed our client under arrest for being intoxicated in a public place pursuant to the Liquor License Act. The officer subsequently searched the client incident to arrest and found a quantity of crack cocaine in a cigarette package in the client’s pocket. Under s. 31(5) of the act, a police officer may arrest a person if it is necessary for the safety of any person. In a Charter application, Ms. Bristow submitted that the arrest was arbitrary because public safety was not at risk as the client was with other people, at least one of whom was told to go home, who could have looked after him. Mr. Bristow submitted that even if the arrest was not arbitrary, the search of the cigarette package found on the client was unreasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Caslake [1998] S.C.R. 51 at para. 22 has held that the purpose of a search incident to arrest is for officer safety reasons as well as where there is “some reasonable prospect of securing evidence of the offence for which the accused is being arrested” and to seize that evidence. The client was arrested for being intoxicated by alcohol and thus there was no reasonable prospect that evidence related to that offence would have been found in his cigarette package. It was further submitted that the search of the client’s cigarette package was not for officer safety in search of weapons. As such, Ms. Bristow submitted that the search of the client’s cigarette package, which allegedly contained cocaine, was unreasonable. Upon filing the Charter application detailing the multiple, deliberate breaches of our client’s constitutional rights, the Crown decided to stay all of the charges against our client. 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. C.
If you are charged with speeding and it is alleged that you are driving 50km/hr over the speed limit or more, you may also be charged with stunt driving under s.172 of the Highway Traffic Act. For a first offence, stunt driving carries a minimum penalty of a $2,000 fine and potentially up to six months in jail, or both. Further, the offender’s driver’s license may be suspended for a period up to two years. These penalties are higher on a subsequent offence. Our client was alleged to have been stunt driving. An officer allegedly saw two cars, including our client’s, driving at a high rate of speed. The officer believed they were racing and put on her lights to stop the vehicles but only our client stopped. One of the things that the prosecutor must prove on a speeding charge is that the radar or laser gun that the officer was using was working properly. Otherwise the court cannot be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the device used accurately detected our client’s speed. The officer was the only witness for the Crown. During cross-examination it came out that the officer had not fully tested the radar gun. Before the cross-examination was finished, the Justice of the Peace dismissed both charges against our client. Speeding charges, no matter how fast it is alleged you are going, can be detrimental to a car owner as insurance companies care more about the conviction, not the speed. This win was very important to our client as he was the main breadwinner in his family since his father passed away. If he lost his ability to drive, or went to jail, his family would have collaterally been punished as well. 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. J.
My client was charged with very serious weapons offences and was released on strict bail conditions wherein he had to be in his place of residence at all times except in the direct and continuous company of either of his sureties. He had been following his conditions for 15 months prior to his arrest for failing to comply. My client was not a Canadian citizen and had received a letter from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) telling him that he was being investigated as a result of the weapons charges and had to come in for an interview. In the letter it stated that if he did not attend there could be a Canada-wide warrant out for his arrest and he may be deported. On the day of the interview neither of our client’s sureties could attend with him to the CBSA meeting. Not wanting to miss the meeting for fear of the serious consequences stated in the letter, our client had his surety drop him off at the bus station and took the bus straight to the meeting. During the interview it was discovered that my client’s surety did not attend with him. Scared that he may be arrested, my client left the meeting. He was re-summonsed to attend three days later, and my client attended with his surety. At this time, my client was arrested for failing to comply with his recognizance for being out of the house without his surety when he attended the first CBSA meeting. At trial, Crown counsel introduced a certified copy of the information from our client’s weapons charges and made it an exhibit. Next, Crown counsel attempted to introduce a certified copy of the indictment from Superior Court. The defence was not provided with adequate notice that the Crown would be bringing a copy of the indictment from Superior Court and I vehemently argued that this documentation should not be entered into evidence. The Canada Evidence Act (CEA) notice provided to the defence included the information from the Ontario Court of Justice but not the indictment, which I argued, are two separate documents. I pointed out that at the time the CEA notice was served the indictment was in existence so there was no reason why it should not have been included. Without this document there was no evidence that our client was subject to a bail at the time of the allegation of failing to comply with his recognizance. The judge agreed with the defence, that providing notice was not a difficult task and that the Crown cannot rely on what the accused “should have” known. The judge ruled that the indictment as inadmissible due to insufficient notice. After the judge’s ruling the Crown tried to make the argument that the indictment was admissible under common law through the principle exception to hearsay. The judge had some concerns with the argument being made after her ruling and thought it would be better if this argument be addressed on a continuation day. To make use of the remainder of the afternoon, both counsel made closing submissions on the merits of the case if the indictment were found to be admissible. I argued that our client had a lawful excuse to be without his surety to attend the CBSA meeting as if he did not appear there would be serious consequences. It was not like a doctor’s appointment or a meeting with his lawyer, it was a meeting that could determine whether or not he may be deported from the country he lives in with his family. i pointed out that while the CBSA officer’s contact information was on the letter, there was no evidence that there was any information about rescheduling the appointment. After a tough battle, the judge agreed with the defence and acquitted out client of failing to comply with his recognizance as he had a lawful excuse. 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. D.
Ms. D. was charged with aggravated assault and wanted bail. An aggravating factor in the decision was that the allegation involved the victim being stabbed with a pair of scissors. The chances of Ms. D. being granted bail was further hindered by her lengthy record for related offences. Despite these hurdles, Ms. Bristow pointed out, though still a fact to be proven at trial, that the allegations showed a real possibility that Ms. D. was acting in self-defence. Further, Ms. Bristow, with the assistance of two sureties, put together an excellent plan of supervision. This plan did not interfere with her taking care of her grandchildren and bringing them to school. After a lengthy bail hearing, the Justice of the Peace agreed that Ms. Bristow had proposed a reasonable form of release and Ms. D was released. R. v. T.
Our client was charged with theft under $5,000 for allegedly shoplifting from a grocery store. There were only two witnesses for the Crown, the assistant manager and the owner of the store. The owner testified that he saw our client put merchandise in a black bag. He testified that he saw our client get in the express checkout lane, leave the line and go back into the store, and then proceed to leave without purchasing anything. The assistant manager was informed about the situation, yet did not see our client put anything in her bag. He stopped her at the front of the store where our client said that she had nothing on her and tried to leave. Instead of letting her leave the assistant manager chased our client and tackled her to the ground where she was held until police arrived. Customer’s change their minds about making purchases all of the time for a variety of reasons. To prove that someone was shoplifting the Crown must show that the person took something with the intention of depriving the true owner of it. Therefore, it is not a crime to pick up merchandise a store and put it back on a shelf before leaving the store. Under cross-examination the owner agreed that the black bag was too big to be a purse and was more like a cloth grocery bag. He agreed that not everyone uses grocery carts and that customers sometimes bring their own bags to shop. The owner further agreed that he looked into our client’s bag after she had been tackled to the ground and saw that there was no merchandise in it. He testified that he found all of the merchandise he saw her take inside the store. After cross-examination of the Crown witnesses, Crown counsel decided to withdraw the charges against our client as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. It was clear to the Crown and to the court that no theft had been committed as there was no merchandise that left the grocery store. 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 |