Drug Trafficking, Conspiracy, Possession of Drugs, and related offences
I(G) 2012
Client charged with production of marijuana after Toronto Police executed a search warrant at a Toronto location. Lawyer David Rose challenged the Toronto Police drug squad decision to obtain electricity consumption records about the client's home without a warrant. Mr. Rose argued that the client had a privacy interest in the electricity consumption data as outlined in the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Gomboc (2010). On the eve of trial the Crown withdrew all charges.
Regina v. S.N. (2012)
Charges of Production of Marijuana and Possession for the Purposes of Trafficking stayed in Superior Court, Barrie, after a lengthy preliminary hearing and extensive pre-trial negotiations with the Federal Prosecutor. After detailed cross-examination at the preliminary hearing, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger established that the alleged number of plants was far less than the estimated 300 originally put forth by the police and that there was no evidence of any commercial activity. The defence put forth evidence that the operation was solely for medicinal purposes. Hence after lengthy negotiations the charges were stayed.
R. v. J.B. (2012)
Production of Marijuana, Possession of Marijuana for the Purpose of Trafficking charges from two separate grow ops withdrawn on eve of Superior Court trial after lawyer David Rose mounts extensive Charter challenge to validity of 3 RCMP search warrants.
Regina v. G.D. (2012)
Charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking x 5, and one count of possession stayed at the preliminary inquiry in the Ontario Court of Justice. The client was arrested after the police conducted surveillance that they believed established that G.D. had been involved in a drug transaction and was in possession of cocaine. The police entered G.D.'s home just prior to the issuance of a search warrant under allegedly exigent circumstances, and when the warrant was issued began a search of the house and found 3.5 kg of cocaine, over 3.5 kg of meth, 3 kg of ecstasy, and various other substances sufficient to charge G.D. with six drug related offences and put him at risk of a jail sentence in excess of eight years if convicted. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger sent several detailed disclosure requests for all notes supporting all of the information set out in the Information to Obtain (the document used by the police to convince a justice to issue a warrant). After very careful and detailed analysis, Joseph Neuberger, was convinced that a significant portion of the information was inaccurate and as a result he drafted a very detailed application to cross-examine the Affiant on the Information to Obtain, in order to challenge the validity of the warrant and attempt to exclude all of the evidence on a breach of the client's Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish numerous deficiencies in the warrant including unsupported information, false information, and was able to raise a very strong attack on the alleged surveillance of G.D. As a result, the prosecution agreed that there were insurmountable problems with the validity of the warrant and all charges were consequently stayed.
R. v. V.(L.)
The Client was charged with conspiracy to traffic after being arrested in the Project Gladiator investigation. Neuberger Rose partner David Rose, a certified specialist in criminal law, did a complete analysis of the disclosure, and gave his opinion to the Crown that the charge could not be proven even at a preliminary hearing. The Crown agreed, and withdrew the charge 4 months after the client was charged.
Regina v. N.D. (2012)
Charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a controlled substance, withdrawn prior to trial. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger challenged the basis of the stop and search of his client and was able to establish that there were no grounds for the search and seizure of the drugs. As a result the crown withdrew the charges.
Regina v. H.M. and H.V. (2011)
Charges of Production of Marijuana and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking were stayed in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive negotiation and pre-trials with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. The number of plants were approximately 200, but in accordance with the defence argument of defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, sufficient defence evidence was established to demonstrate that both defendants were growing marijuana not for the purpose of trafficking but for medicinal purposes. After consultation with Joseph Neuberger, both clients were successful in obtaining their medical authorizations, and combined with issues surrounding the deficiencies in the grounds for the search warrant, Joseph Neuberger was able to negotiated that all charges were to be stayed.
Regina v. W.R.O. (2011)
Charge of conspiracy to commit the indictable offence of trafficking withdrawn prior to trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. Defence counsel Joseph A. Neuberger, after careful analysis of the prosecution disclosure, including intercepted text messages and emails, was able to establish that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. In addition, Joseph Neuberger was successful in bringing an application under section 490 of the Criminal Code of Canada for the return of all seized property.
R. v. J. M. (2010)
Client was charged with possession for the purposes of trafficking (Marijuana) and Simple Possession (marijuana) in Brampton. Client was stopped by police on a "routine HTA stop". Client was in the passenger seat and then, under intimidation, told the police what he had on him. Client was later told to contact police privately if he wanted to cooperate with police to assist them with his supplier. Mr. Navarrete had a CPT with the Federal Crown and raised various issues including the illegal search and the law of acting as an agent for police. Federal Crown agreed that this case was problematic to prosecute and decided to offer diversion despite the amount of marijuana found. Charges were ultimately withdrawn after completion of 40 hours of community service.
R. v. D.H. (2010)
Client was charged with possession for the purposes of trafficking (Heroin), dangerous driving causing bodily harm, fail to remain at accident, and resist arrest after allegedly making a serious of drug buys observed by police which then led to a high speed chase through a suburban neighbourhood. The Crown had been seeking significant jail time in the range of 4 years given the Heroin drug charges and the conduct of driving. Mr. Navarrete was retained by D.H. After reviewing the Federal Crown disclosure, Mr. Navarrete conducted a Crown Pre-Trial and a Judicial Pre-Trial and was able to demonstrate to the Federal Crown and Judge the evidentiary problems with much of the Crown's case. The Crown and the Defence agreed to a plea in the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket to dangerous driving for a conditional sentence and all other charges, including the drug charges involving Heroin, were withdrawn.
R. v. A.(M.) - 2010
Client's charge of possession of 1 lb of Cocaine stayed after David Rose presses Crown on lawfulness of search of client's house.
R. v. Gomboc - 2010
David Rose and John Navarrete represent Canadian Civil Liberties Association in Supreme Court of Canada in a marijuana grow-op case. Chief Justice McLachlin says in her dissenting judgment:
[128] The intervener the Canadian Civil Liberties Association ("CCLA") submits that this type of information can be used to make several intrusive predictions regarding the probable activities taking place within a home. The CCLA submits, correctly in our view, that these predictions may include whether anyone is home, the approximate time at which the occupants go to bed and wake up, and guesses as to particular appliances being used. Of course, these predictions cannot be made with certainty. However, they do have the potential to reveal private or "biographical" information, and are significantly more reliable than any predictions that can be made using the electricity-usage information collected in R. v. Plant, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 281.
Read the judgment:
Regina v. F.D. (2010)
Charges of possession of controlled substances, including marijuana, cocaine and ecstasy, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime all withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. A search of the client's residence by police resulted in the seizure of a large amount of drugs and money. The residence was shared with two other individuals. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, after careful and detailed review of the notes of the police officers, evidence and search warrants was able to establish that there was insufficient evidence to connect F.D. to the drugs and money seized, in addition to a possibly violation of the client's rights under s. 8 of the Charter. Accordingly, all charges were stayed.
Regina v. Breen (2009)
Charges of Production, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking and Possession of Proceeds of Crime dismissed after lawyer Stacey Nichols along with co-counsel successfully argued that search warrant was invalid due to misrepresentations and errors made by police officers when drafting warrant.
Regina v. J.(P.) (2009)
Charges of Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Cocaine, Marijuana and Ecstasy stayed during the middle of lengthy Preliminary Hearing by the Crown pursuant to defence counsel Stacey Nichols pointing out facial invalidity of the Authorization to intercept telephone calls from a federal institution.
Regina v. D.H. (2008)
Charges of Trafficking in Marijuana and Conspiracy to Traffic Marijuana in Project Goldmine investigation stayed before trial by lawyer David Rose.
Regina v. S.K. (2009)
Charges of Possession of a Controlled Substance for Purpose of Trafficking stayed by Crown after submissions by lawyer David Rose
Regina v. P.M. (2009)
Charges of Production of Marijuana and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking withdrawn after judicial pre-trial in the Ontario Court of Justice based upon defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger's challenge to the roadside stop of the client's vehicle. The car was pulled over for speeding and during the course of the investigation the police officer made a roadside demand for a breath sample. The officer then suspended the taking of the sample and began to search the vehicle after which he discovered a large quantity of plants. The defence asserted breaches of s. 10(a) and (b) of the Charter, that being a breach of the client's right to be advised of why the search was being conducted and the right to speak with counsel. From that flowed a breach of the client's section 8 right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure. Accordingly, the charges were withdrawn.
Regina v. Kopscanyi (2008)
Client acquitted of Possession of Marijuana and Fail to Comply Recognizance pursuant to successful section 8 Charter Application resulting in the exclusion of evidence.
Regina v. D.M. (2008)
Charges of possession of controlled substance and possession for the purpose of trafficking withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after persistent challenge to the authorization for the search of the client's residence.
Regina v. Borushynski (2008)
Charges of Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking in Marijuana, Possession of Hash, Possession of Psilocybin, and Possession of Proceeds of Crime, withdrawn at the commencement of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, after successful Constitutional Application for violations of s. 8, 7 and 10(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger filed a detailed Application alleging that the grounds for the search warrant, authorizing a search of the client's residence, were insufficient to properly allow the police to search the home of the client. The tip of the Confidential Informant set out in the Information to Obtain was not established to have been reliable, credible or otherwise anything more than rumour, and the grounds obtained by police while responding to an emergency call were obtained illegally as the initial search was an unlawful perimeter search of the client's property. Accordingly, the charges were withdrawn and the clients received the return of his funds.
Regina v. Park (2008)
Charges of trafficking in cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime withdrawn at the preliminary hearing after our defence lawyer aggressively pursued a string of Charter violations by the police, including an unreasonable search of the client's business premises.
Regina v. C.B. (2008)
Charges of possession and theft withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice after successful Charter Application regarding the unlawful stop of the client's vehicle and breach of the client's right to counsel, and to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure.
Regina v. Kopscanyi (2008)
Client acquitted of Possession of Marijuana and Fail to Comply Recognizance pursuant to successful section 8 Charter Application resulting in the exclusion of evidence.
Regina v. D.M. (2008)
Charges of possession of controlled substance and possession for the purpose of trafficking withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after persistent challenge to the authorization for the search of the client's residence.
Regina v. Borushynski (2008)
Charges of Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking in Marijuana, Possession of Hash, Possession of Psilocybin, and Possession of Proceeds of Crime, withdrawn at the commencement of trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, after successful Constitutional Application for violations of s. 8, 7 and 10(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger filed a detailed Application alleging that the grounds for the search warrant, authorizing a search of the client's residence, were insufficient to properly allow the police to search the home of the client. The tip of the Confidential Informant set out in the Information to Obtain was not established to have been reliable, credible or otherwise anything more than rumour, and the grounds obtained by police while responding to an emergency call were obtained illegally as the initial search was an unlawful perimeter search of the client's property. Accordingly, the charges were withdrawn and the clients received the return of his funds.
Regina v. Park (2008)
Charges of trafficking in cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime withdrawn at the preliminary hearing after our defence lawyer aggressively pursued a string of Charter violations by the police, including an unreasonable search of the client's business premises.
Regina v. C.B. (2008)
Charges of possession and theft withdrawn at trial in the Ontario Court of Justice after successful Charter Application regarding the unlawful stop of the client's vehicle and breach of the client's right to counsel, and to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure.
Regina v. Park and Yi (2007)
Client acquitted in the Superior Court of Justice of possession for the purpose of trafficking in a controlled substance, cocaine and marijuana, possession of drugs, proceeds of crime and possession of a stun gun. The defence alleged a breach of the client's s. 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Police obtained a warrant to enter a dwelling without proper grounds and entered an adjacent dwelling without prior authorization by a judge. The police were originally denied the warrant by one Judge and then proceeded to find another Judge to issue the warrant without changing the Affidavit in support of the warrant. At trial, detailed and vigorous cross-examination of the investigating officers undermined the basis of the search. At trial, the Trial Judge agreed with the defence submissions, found a breach of section 8 of the Charter and excluded $62,000.00, the stun gun, two kilos of cocaine, 1.5 kilos of marijuana and 1400 ecstasy pills. As a result of the exclusion of evidence, there was no basis to find the clients guilty of the charges and they were found not guilty of all charges.
Regina vs. Rahim (2007)
Charges of possession of Cocaine and Fail to Appear dismissed in Ontario Court of Justice after counsel argued successful Charter Application relating to an unreasonable search and detention of client.
Regina v. Park and Yi (2007)
Client acquitted in the Superior Court of Justice of possession for the purpose of trafficking in a controlled substance, cocaine and marijuana, possession of drugs, proceeds of crime and possession of a stun gun. The defence alleged a breach of the client's s. 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Police obtained a warrant to enter a dwelling without proper grounds and entered an adjacent dwelling without prior authorization by a judge. The police were originally denied the warrant by one Judge and then proceeded to find another Judge to issue the warrant without changing the Affidavit in support of the warrant. At trial, detailed and vigorous cross-examination of the investigating officers undermined the basis of the search. At trial, the Trial Judge agreed with the defence submissions, found a breach of section 8 of the Charter and excluded $62,000.00, the stun gun, two kilos of cocaine, 1.5 kilos of marijuana and 1400 ecstasy pills. As a result of the exclusion of evidence, there was no basis to find the clients guilty of the charges and they were found not guilty of all charges.
Regina vs. Rahim (2007)
Charges of possession of Cocaine and Fail to Appear dismissed in Ontario Court of Justice after counsel argued successful Charter Application relating to an unreasonable search and detention of client.
Regina v. D.W. (2006)
Charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking withdrawn after Crown concedes defence Charter Application alleging an improper search.
Regina v. D.W. (2006)
Charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking withdrawn after Crown concedes defence Charter Application alleging an improper search.
Regina v. Lee (2005)
Client acquitted after five day trial in the Superior Court of Justice before Madame Justice Lowe on charges of Production of Marijuana, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking in Marijuana . Charter Application to exclude evidence based on a violation of the client's rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was successful resulting in not guilty verdicts on all counts.
Regina v. Kim (2005)
Client acquitted after one week trial in the Superior Court of Justice before Mr. Justice McDougall of charges of Production of Marijuana, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, Proceeds of Crime . All evidence excluded on a successful Charter Application for violations of the client's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and detention.
Regina v. Izzo and Izzo (2005)
Charges of Production of Marijuana withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after successful challenge to the authority of the police to search.
Regina v. Furet (2005)
Charges of Production of Marijuana, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, Possession of Proceeds of Crime withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice.
Regina v. Bangura (2005)
Charges of trafficking in Cocaine dismissed in court.
Regina v. Kim (2005)
Client acquitted after trial on charges of production of marijuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking marijuana, proceeds of crime. Defence's Charter Application to exclude all evidence as a result of an unlawful search and seizure of Mr. Kim's home and the shooting of Mr. Kim's dogs by the police successful. Judge found actions by police to have been unconstitutional and unlawful.
Regina v. Stalas and Calderon (2004), Ontario Court of Appeal.
Mr. Stalas and Mr. Calderon were charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession, and possession of proceeds of crime. Mr. Stalas and Mr. Calderon were convicted at trial in Superior Court in Thunder Bay. Their application alleging an unlawful and arbitrary detention and arrest, and unlawful search and seizure, in addition to a violation of their Section 10(b) right to counsel were dismissed by the trial judge. On appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, Mr. Stalas and Mr. Calderon were acquitted by the Court of Appeal on all charges. The Court of Appeal found that there were violations of the accused right to be free from an arbitrary detention and arrest, as well as their Section 8 rights to be free for an unreasonable search and seizure. In addition, the Court of Appeal found that upon a stop without further grounds for a search must provide all persons with their right to counsel. Since the police officers did not provide rights to counsel and an opportunity to contact counsel prior to obtaining consent or proceeding with the search, there was a violation of the their Section 10(b) rights as well. According all charges were acquitted on appeal.
Regina v. Young Burg (2004)
Acquitted after trial on charges of production and possession for the purposes of trafficking. A Charter Application was advanced at trial alleging breaches of Section 8 of the Charter, namely a violation of the accused rights to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure. The grounds for the warrant were deficient, as such the warrant was quashed by the Superior Court and all evidence was excluded. Accordingly, all charges against Mr. Young Burg were dismissed at trial.
Regina v. Helland (2004)
Charge of importing over $1/2 Million of cocaine stayed, after defence cross-examination of lead investigating RCMP officer, in respect to violations of Ms. Helland's rights under Sections 7, 8 and 10(b) of the Charter.
Regina v. Bouzalas (2004)
Charges of production of marijuana, possession for the purposes of trafficking, and possession of a controlled substance. Withdrawn after Charter Application advance for breaches of Sections 8 and 10(b) of the Charter, arising from an unlawful search and seizure by the police.
Regina v. Vo (2004)
Charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession, and proceeds of crime. Withdrawn after Charter Application advanced for unlawful detention and search. All seized funds returned to the client.
Regina v. DaSilva et al. (2004)
Charges of conspiracy to produce a controlled substance, steroids, possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession of a controlled substance and proceeds of crime. Withdrawn at trial after Charter Application for breaches of Section7, Section 8 and Section 11(b) of the Chapter involving deficient warrant and abuse of conduct by police in the course of the execution of the search. All seized items and funds returned to the clients.
Regina v. Tran and Ngo (2004)
Acquitted after trial on charges of production, possession for the purposes of trafficking, and possession.
Hitzig, Myrden et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen (2003)
Applicants successful in striking down the Medicinal Marijuana Access Regulations in Superior Court as being unconstitutional by not providing a safe, legal supply of marijuana. See more information in our In the News section.
Regina v. D.D. (2003)
Charges of possession of 1kg. Hashish, Cocaine, Stun Gun, and Bookmaking. Acquitted after successful cross-examination of O.P.P. Officer.
Regina v. Sherri Brown (2003)
Charges of importing cocaine. Acquitted after trial before jury.
Regina v. M.L. (2003)
Client found not guilty of charges of Over 80 and Possession of Cocaine after successful Charter Argument that Peel Regional Police should not have investigated client in parking lot of Brampton nightclub.
Regina v. Holland (2003)
Charge of possession over $5000.00. Withdrawn after attack on the substance of Crown's case.
Regina v. M.C. (2002) O.J. No. 434 (C.A.)
Charges of Sexual Assault. Conviction overturned by Court of Appeal due to error in charge by jury.
Regina v. Chaudhary (2002)
Charge of possession withdrawn.
Regina v. Martin (2002)
Charges Of Carry Concealed weapon, possession of a controlled substance, dismissed, acquitted at trial.
Regina v. Francis (2002)
Charges of Trafficking in a controlled substance, possession of proceeds of crime, charges stayed.
Regina v. Carroll (2002)
Charges Of Trafficking in a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, charges withdrawn.
Regina v. A.L. (2002)
Charges of theft over, possession over, fail to stop for police - charges withdrawn.
Regina v. J.H. (2002)
Charges of theft over, possession over, charges withdrawn.
Regina v. F.H. (2002)
Charges of fall to comply with a disposition, possession under, withdrawn.
Regina v. Campbell (2002)
Charges of possession of a controlled substance, acquitted at trial, charges of fall to comply with bail order, charges withdrawn.
Regina v. Elford (2001)
Charges of robbery, possession under x2 - discharged at trial at preliminary hearing.
Regina v. Powell (2001)
Client acquitted of charges of Possession of cocaine.
Regina v. Powell (2001)
Charge of trafficking in cocaine stayed by Department of Justice, as result of Defence Application.
Regina v. Dolzycki (2001)
Possession of Narcotic charge withdraw by Crown as result of Defence application alleging improper search and violations under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Regina v. Lee (2005)
Client acquitted after five day trial in the Superior Court of Justice before Madame Justice Lowe on charges of Production of Marijuana, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking in Marijuana . Charter Application to exclude evidence based on a violation of the client's rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was successful resulting in not guilty verdicts on all counts.
Regina v. Kim (2005)
Client acquitted after one week trial in the Superior Court of Justice before Mr. Justice McDougall of charges of Production of Marijuana, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, Proceeds of Crime . All evidence excluded on a successful Charter Application for violations of the client's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and detention.
Regina v. Izzo and Izzo (2005)
Charges of Production of Marijuana withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after successful challenge to the authority of the police to search.
Regina v. Furet (2005)
Charges of Production of Marijuana, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, Possession of Proceeds of Crime withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice.
Regina v. Bangura (2005)
Charges of trafficking in Cocaine dismissed in court.
Regina v. Kim (2005)
Client acquitted after trial on charges of production of marijuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking marijuana, proceeds of crime. Defence's Charter Application to exclude all evidence as a result of an unlawful search and seizure of Mr. Kim's home and the shooting of Mr. Kim's dogs by the police successful. Judge found actions by police to have been unconstitutional and unlawful.
Regina v. Stalas and Calderon (2004), Ontario Court of Appeal.
Mr. Stalas and Mr. Calderon were charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession, and possession of proceeds of crime. Mr. Stalas and Mr. Calderon were convicted at trial in Superior Court in Thunder Bay. Their application alleging an unlawful and arbitrary detention and arrest, and unlawful search and seizure, in addition to a violation of their Section 10(b) right to counsel were dismissed by the trial judge. On appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, Mr. Stalas and Mr. Calderon were acquitted by the Court of Appeal on all charges. The Court of Appeal found that there were violations of the accused right to be free from an arbitrary detention and arrest, as well as their Section 8 rights to be free for an unreasonable search and seizure. In addition, the Court of Appeal found that upon a stop without further grounds for a search must provide all persons with their right to counsel. Since the police officers did not provide rights to counsel and an opportunity to contact counsel prior to obtaining consent or proceeding with the search, there was a violation of the their Section 10(b) rights as well. According all charges were acquitted on appeal.
Regina v. Young Burg (2004)
Acquitted after trial on charges of production and possession for the purposes of trafficking. A Charter Application was advanced at trial alleging breaches of Section 8 of the Charter, namely a violation of the accused rights to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure. The grounds for the warrant were deficient, as such the warrant was quashed by the Superior Court and all evidence was excluded. Accordingly, all charges against Mr. Young Burg were dismissed at trial.
Regina v. Helland (2004)
Charge of importing over $1/2 Million of cocaine stayed, after defence cross-examination of lead investigating RCMP officer, in respect to violations of Ms. Helland's rights under Sections 7, 8 and 10(b) of the Charter.
Regina v. Bouzalas (2004)
Charges of production of marijuana, possession for the purposes of trafficking, and possession of a controlled substance. Withdrawn after Charter Application advance for breaches of Sections 8 and 10(b) of the Charter, arising from an unlawful search and seizure by the police.
Regina v. Vo (2004)
Charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession, and proceeds of crime. Withdrawn after Charter Application advanced for unlawful detention and search. All seized funds returned to the client.
Regina v. DaSilva et al. (2004)
Charges of conspiracy to produce a controlled substance, steroids, possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession of a controlled substance and proceeds of crime. Withdrawn at trial after Charter Application for breaches of Section7, Section 8 and Section 11(b) of the Chapter involving deficient warrant and abuse of conduct by police in the course of the execution of the search. All seized items and funds returned to the clients.
Regina v. Tran and Ngo (2004)
Acquitted after trial on charges of production, possession for the purposes of trafficking, and possession.
Hitzig, Myrden et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen (2003)
Applicants successful in striking down the Medicinal Marijuana Access Regulations in Superior Court as being unconstitutional by not providing a safe, legal supply of marijuana. See more information in our In the News section.
Regina v. D.D. (2003)
Charges of possession of 1kg. Hashish, Cocaine, Stun Gun, and Bookmaking. Acquitted after successful cross-examination of O.P.P. Officer.
Regina v. Sherri Brown (2003)
Charges of importing cocaine. Acquitted after trial before jury.
Regina v. M.L. (2003)
Client found not guilty of charges of Over 80 and Possession of Cocaine after successful Charter Argument that Peel Regional Police should not have investigated client in parking lot of Brampton nightclub.
Regina v. Holland (2003)
Charge of possession over $5000.00. Withdrawn after attack on the substance of Crown's case.
Regina v. M.C. (2002) O.J. No. 434 (C.A.)
Charges of Sexual Assault. Conviction overturned by Court of Appeal due to error in charge by jury.
Regina v. Chaudhary (2002)
Charge of possession withdrawn.
Regina v. Martin (2002)
Charges Of Carry Concealed weapon, possession of a controlled substance, dismissed, acquitted at trial.
Regina v. Francis (2002)
Charges of Trafficking in a controlled substance, possession of proceeds of crime, charges stayed.
Regina v. Carroll (2002)
Charges Of Trafficking in a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, charges withdrawn.
Regina v. A.L. (2002)
Charges of theft over, possession over, fail to stop for police - charges withdrawn.
Regina v. J.H. (2002)
Charges of theft over, possession over, charges withdrawn.
Regina v. F.H. (2002)
Charges of fall to comply with a disposition, possession under, withdrawn.
Regina v. Campbell (2002)
Charges of possession of a controlled substance, acquitted at trial, charges of fall to comply with bail order, charges withdrawn.
Regina v. Elford (2001)
Charges of robbery, possession under x2 - discharged at trial at preliminary hearing.
Regina v. Powell (2001)
Client acquitted of charges of Possession of cocaine.
Regina v. Powell (2001)
Charge of trafficking in cocaine stayed by Department of Justice, as result of Defence Application.
Regina v. Dolzycki (2001)
Possession of Narcotic charge withdraw by Crown as result of Defence application alleging improper search and violations under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
