R v. D.P.
This was a domestic assault case where I was able to successfully negotiate a withdrawal of all charges.
With the strength of affidavit evidence from both the complainant and a witness, I was able to argue for a withdrawal through the means of two crown-pretrials. Justice was served, and a potentially costly and unfortunate situation was shortened and my client was ultimately vindicated.
R. v. D.S.
This was a robbery with a firearm case. The allegations were serious, with the Crown alleging that my client held up a grocery store and several employees at gun point. However, there were huge gaps in the Crown’s case including a choppy surveillance camera, and no straight identification of the assailant. Eventually all charges were withdrawn, as I was able to argue that the Crown would not be able to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
R. v. S.P.
In this matter, my client was charged with theft under at a retail store. The evidence against my client was very strong. I met with the Crown on different occasions and was able to argue for extra judicial measures, meaning no criminal record for my client. My client had to make a small donation to a charity and all charges were withdrawn.
R. v. J.D.
My client was charged with Assault Causing Bodily Harm. The allegations were such that the alleged victim in this case had suffered a broken jaw by virtue of the assault. This matter went through many Crown pre-trials and judicial pre-trials. Ultimately, the trial was heard over a 3 day period at the Ontario Court of Justice. After cross-examining the Crown’s witnesses and presenting the defence’s case, my client was acquitted of all charges and was a free man.
R. v. S.D.
My client was charged and arrested with Fail to Comply, Assault and Mischief. He had outstanding charges in a different jurisdiction on the same complainant. This was a reverse onus situation where the Crown was asking for my client to be detained because he was a flight risk, and further because there was a high risk of re-offence. I met with my client’s sureties, prepared them for the bail hearing, and was able to successfully put a plan forward for the release of my client and therefore his bail was granted.
R. v. F.T.
Mr. Singh recently appeared in front of Justice Greene at the Old City Hall in Toronto, as counsel for an accused charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80mg. Mr. Singh brought three Charter motions in this matter challenging the legality of the search and seizure of the taking of his client’s breath sample, as well as challenging the legality of the arbitrary stop by the police officers, as well as a Charter challenge arguing that his client’s rights were violated by the fact that his client was not read his rights to counsel. In all, three Charter challenges were brought, one under section 7, one under section 8, and lastly under section 10(b).
Mr. Singh was ultimately successful in his s.7, s.8 and s.10(b) Charter challenge, as Justice Greene found that the Officers were deficient in instructing the accused with respect to his right to counsel, and further that the accused was detained illegally and arbitrarily by virtue of the fact that the Officers did not have a valid road side screening device in obtaining the accused’s breath sample. Ultimately, both the Impaired Driving charges, and the Over 80mg charges were withdrawn, as Crown Counsel agreed with both Justice Greene, and Mr. Singh, in that the breath sample was illegally obtained by the Officers, and that there was no merit to the Crown’s case.