R. v. J.S. Possession of Loaded Restricted Firearm, Occupant of Vehicle with Knowledge of a Firearm, Unlicenced Possession of Firearm, Unauthorized Possession of Ammunition, Possession of Fentanyl for the Purpose of Trafficking.
Client, who had just turned 18, was charged after police stopped him searched his vehicle, and seized a loaded handgun, along with a satchel containing several dozen fentanyl pills. The officers claimed that they stopped the vehicle to investigate a burnt out headlight, and that the search was pursuant to s. 12 of the Cannabis Control Act. Back at the station, officers tried to recruit the client to become a confidential informant: two officers put him in an unrecorded room without giving him an opportunity to speak with a lawyer about his situation. Joel identified a series of contradictions between the officers’ accounts, and established that they lied about the reason for the stop, and the search. All evidence was excluded, and the client was acquitted.
R. v. J.T. Possession of a Restricted Firearm with Ammunition, Possession of Firearm with Defaced Serial Number, Unauthorized Possession of Firearm, Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking, Possession of Proceeds Obtained by Crime.
Client was arrested after police executed search warrants on his home and car. Officers seized a loaded handgun, and a significant quantity of cocaine from a secret compartment in his car, along with thousands of dollars in cash from his bedroom. The warrants followed a lengthy Guns and Gangs “project” investigation, which involved the interception and recording of the client’s private conversations, as well as police surveillance of his home. The Crown estimated the proper sentence for these offences to be as much as nine years in the penitentiary. After reviewing thousands of pages of disclosure, Joel discovered problems with the manner in which police handled the interception of the client’s communications, as well as issues with the search warrants. Joel pointed these out to the Crown, along with references in the disclosure to improper legal advice given by one of the prosecutors to a senior investigator (which would have made that prosecutor a witness in Charter proceedings). Shortly afterwards, the Crown agreed to stay all the gun and drug charges, and join the defence in proposing a conditional sentence (involving a relatively short period of house arrest) to the Court on a guilty plea to the proceeds. The client avoided any conviction for the gun or drugs, and stayed out of jail.
R. v. A.R.V. Robbery with Firearm.
Client was shot by a security guard, on video, while robbing a jewelry store armed with a loaded gun. Police followed the trail of blood to the client’s truck, where they found him bleeding to death. He was rushed to hospital, where he underwent multiple surgeries to save his life. He was jailed upon his release from hospital, and the jail did not provide the post-operative physiotherapy required to ensure that he would not be permanently disabled. As a result, Joel was able to get the client released, despite the fact that he had been on bail with the same sureties at the time of the robbery.
R. v. B.S. Robbery with a Firearm, Conspiracy to Commit an Indictable Offence.
Client was arrested after a high-profile robbery at a place of worship. There was no physical evidence linking him to the scene, and he had an alibi, but police alleged that he was the ringleader, based on a statement given by one of the robbers at the time of his arrest. After Joel pointed out problems with the statement and the manner in which it was made, all charges were withdrawn.
R. v. S.E. Possession of a Loaded Restricted Firearm, Possession of a Conducted Energy Weapon, Careless Storage, Possession of Ammunition.
Client was arrested after a search warrant in her apartment led to the discovery of an illegal handgun, a box of bullets, and a electronic stun gun which resembled a cattle-prod. Joel got her released on bail the following day, and secured her release three more times, after alleged breaches of her bail conditions. At trial, the co-accused was convicted of possessing the gun and ammunition, but the jury reached no verdict with respect to the client herself. The Crown initially sought to re-prosecute, but ultimately stayed the charges, after Joel challenged the constitutional validity of Criminal Code provisions which enabled re-prosecution in the circumstances.
R. v. N.P. Unlawful Possession of A Loaded Restricted Firearm, Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking, Production of Marijuana, etc.
Client was awakened in the middle of the night by a heavily armed tactical team battering down his front door. When he ran downstairs to see what was going on, he was tasered repeatedly, and violently arrested (see Misconduct). Police seized a loaded handgun from his bedside table, a few feet from his baby’s crib. Downstairs, they found a significant amount of cocaine, and a marijuana grow-op. Joel challenged the search warrant, as well as the brutal manner of arrest, and the unconstitutional interrogation that followed. The Superior Court Judge found that the client’s rights had been violated, and excluded the gun and drugs from the trial; as a result the client was acquitted of all charges.
R. v. A.W. Residential Break and Enter, Assault (Domestic), Weapons Dangerous, Robbery with Firearm (Home Invasion).
Client was wanted on multiple warrants in Toronto and Brampton. Joel spoke with Crown attorneys in both jurisdictions, and arranged for a bail hearing in Brampton, with all of the allegations before the court. Once that arrangement was in place, he facilitated the client’s surrender. The client was ordered released to two sureties in Brampton, following a lengthy contested bail hearing, and the following day was released on consent in Toronto, on the same conditions, to the same sureties. After setting his matters down for preliminary inquiry, and trial, all charges were withdrawn.
R. v. A.C. Robbery with Firearm, Weapons Dangerous.
Client, a youth, was charged with a gang robbery involving a firearm. Joel secured the client’s release after a full-day bail hearing, and after close review of the disclosure, identified fundamental problems with the Crown’s case. All charges were withdrawn.