Client charged with possession of drugs and firearms seized from two residences, where he was found at the scene. Counsel argued that the search warrant for one of the residences was insufficient, The judge agreed that the warrant was insufficient and that the search of the residence violated the client’s Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Counsel later argued there had been an unreasonable delay in the client’s trial, and the judge agreed, resulting in a stay of proceedings on all the charges.
Case Results
At Stern Shapray, we provide legal representation across a wide range of criminal and quasi-criminal matters, from serious charges to regulatory and provincial offences.
R. v. J.T.
R. v. J
Client charged with a historical Sexual Assault on a minor when they were working in a high school many years ago as a Youth Worker. Client loses their position in the school system as a result of the charges. After a lengthy Trial all charges dismissed and the Client was able to return to work in the School system.
R. v. R.
Client charged with assaulting his live-in girlfriend and girlfriend’s mother. Ms. Shamess persuaded Crown to vary court-ordered conditions to allow client to return home, and ultimately to DROP all charges against the client. – NOT GUILTY
R. v. C.
Client charged with sexual assault and unlawful confinement. Crown also applied to seize the client’s lawfully-owned firearms and his firearms license, and to prohibit him from owning firearms in the future. Counsel negotiated a peace bond on the criminal charges, resulting in no criminal record for the client, and also successfully argued to have the firearms seizure and prohibition application dropped.
R v J.H.
Client was charged by indictment with sexual assault and sexual interference against an ex-girlfriend’s daughter. The case proceeded to trial. After a three-day trial and cross examination of multiple Crown witnesses, the Judge found that Ms. Badea’s skillful cross examination identified issues in the complainant’s evidence and the Judge acquitted the client.
R. v. T.S.
Client was charged by indictment with robbery for stealing collector’s sneakers at knifepoint. Mr. Beckett persuaded the Crown to stay the proceedings against the client. – NOT GUILTY
R. v. N.H.
Client received a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition for failing or refusing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device (“ASD”). 90-day IRP overturned after the adjudicator agreed with counsel’s arguments that the ASD demand was unlawful because the officer did not have the proper grounds to make the demand.
R. v. S.B.
Ms. Somal was counsel on a case involving a charge of Assault with a Weapon. Ms. Somal arranged for client to take anger management counselling and other rehabilitative steps which resulted in a successful negotiation with the prosecutor. Serious criminal charges dropped and client entered into a peace bond. – NOT GUILTY
R. v. M.E.
Client charged with Driving While Prohibited. Charge reduced to lesser and included offence of not having a driver’s license. – NO DRIVING PROHIBITION
R. v. A.S.
Client was charged by indictment for theft from his employer in an amount over $5,000. The client was not a Canadian citizen and faced potentially significant immigration consequences if he was convicted. Mr. Beckett was persuaded the Crown to drop the client’s charges. – NOT GUILTY