RECENT SUCCESSES

As a highly experienced Toronto Criminal Lawyer and a founding member of Canada’s largest criminal law firm, Brian Ross has a long history of successes in all areas of criminal law. Mr. Ross represents people charged with all types of criminal offences, both at the Ontario Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Justice. He has represented people at hundreds of trials, including jury trials for people charged with Murder, Fraud, Aggravated Assault, Sexual Assault, Possession of Firearms, Trafficking Drugs, and Kidnapping. He has secured numerous acquittals from juries and judges and is currently at the Superior Court of Justice representing an individual charged with First Degree Murder.

RECENT SUCCESSES
BY OFFENCES

DRINKING AND DRIVING OFFENCES ASSAULTS AND THREATS DOMESTIC ASSAULT SEXUAL ASSAULT DRUG OFFENCES FIREARMS AND WEAPONS OFFENCES MURDER/MANSLAUGHTER ROBBERY CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION/GANG OFFENCES THEFTS AND SHOPLIFTING FRAUDS AND WHITE COLLAR CRIMES OFFENCES AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE YOUTH COURT CASES BAIL HEARINGS AND BAIL REVIEWS EXTRADITION CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES

DRINKING AND DRIVING OFFENCES

R. v. L.M.

Client stopped by police who demanded he provide a breath sample. Although he attempted several times, he could not provide a “suitable” one. He was charged with Refuse to Provide Breath Sample. At trial, I challenged the grounds for which the police had to make the demand in the first place. As well, I argued that the police did not prove that the breath sample device was one that was “approved” by law.

Charge was dismissed after trial.

R. v. H.G.

Client was followed by police as they believed he was driving a stolen vehicle. They claimed that his driving was impaired by alcohol due to the manner in which the vehicle was being driven.

Charged stayed on the trial date.

R. v. D.G.

Client’s vehicle came to the attention of the police who began following him. They claimed he was driving in an erratic manner and upon stopping the vehicle, they believed that he was under the influence of alcohol. He was charged with Impaired Driving.

Charge withdrawn on trial date.

ASSAULTS AND THREATS

R. v. H.B.

Client charged with Aggravated Assault, Assault, and Threatening Death. Client alleged to have attacked the complainant with a machete. Complainant suffered significant injuries to his face and required significant medical attention. Client admitted to causing the injuries but was acting in self-defence.

Acquitted by jury at the Superior Court of Justice

R. v. I.H.

Client was charged with severely beating another individual outside a club. The injuries included a broken jaw. It was the client’s position that not only did he not participate in this assault but that he was not even there.

After a trial before judge and jury at the Superior Court of Justice, the Judge stayed the charges.

R. v. S.S.

Client charged with Aggravated Assault and Assault with a Weapon. It was alleged that the client and her friends got into a verbal altercation with another group of people and the client then produced a knife and stabbed the victim. It was the client’s position that she was not the stabber.

All charges withdrawn.

R. v. S.H.

Client charged with Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Assault Police Officer, and Possession of Cocaine. It was alleged that the client got into a fight at a festival. When police intervened, it was alleged that the client fought with the police. Upon arrest, police discovered cocaine on the client.

All charges dismissed after trial.

R. v. A.W.

Police officer attend at an apartment building to investigate various offences. It was alleged that the client began throwing beer bottles down at the officers.

Found “not guilty” of all charges after trial.

R. v. S.C.

Client charged with Assault with Weapon. It was alleged that while at school, client brandished a knife and assaulted a fellow student.

Charge withdrawn after successful meeting with the Crown Attorney

R. v. S.P.

Client charged with Assault. The complainant was attempting to get into the client’s apartment building unlawfully. The client would not permit this and it was alleged that he assaulted the complainant in the process.

Charge withdrawn after a Charter application brought.

R. v. S.K.

Client charged with Assault and Uttering a Threat to a student at school.

Charge withdrawn after successful meeting with the Crown Attorney

DOMESTIC ASSAULT

R. v. C.C.

Client and his wife got into an argument at home. It was alleged that the client began to strike his wife. Client’s position was that he was actually defending himself from his wife.

client found “not guilty” of all charges after trial.

R. v. P.M.

Client charged with several counts of Domestic Assault against his girlfriend. It was alleged that they got into an argument and he began to strike her several times. P.M. testified that it was the opposite; that she attacked him when he tried to end the relationship.

found “not guilty” after trial.

R. v. L.F.

Client’s girlfriend alleged that he assaulted her on numerous occasions and on one of them, used a weapon. Client denied the allegations.

Found “not guilty” of all charges after a contested trial.

R. v. M.V.

Client charged with domestic assault against his wife. It was alleged that during an argument, he struck her and a fight continued.

Charges dismissed at trial.

R. v. M.S.

Client charged with two counts of Assault and Utter Death Threats. Complainant alleged that after a verbal argument, her boyfriend began hitting her and then assaulted her friend. He then threatened both of them.

Charges withdrawn after successful meeting with the Crown Attorney

R. v. A.B.

Client charged with Assault against her boyfriend.

Charge withdrawn by Crown Attorney

R. v. C.W.

Client charged with assaulting his girlfriend and threatening to kill her, after a verbal dispute.

Charges withdrawn after discussions with the Crown Attorney

R. v. G.M.

Client charged with domestic assault after allegedly striking his girlfriend several times.

Charge withdrawn by the Crown Attorney.

R. v. C.W.

It was alleged that the client and his wife got into an argument and that the client struck his wife several times. Client charged with domestic assault.

client found “not guilty” after contested trial.

R. v. G.M.

Client charged with Forcible Confinement, Threatening Death, Theft Under, Possession of Property Obtained by Crime, Obstruct Police, Fail to Comply with Bail. It was alleged that client would not allow his girlfriend to leave her residence after stealing from her and threatening to kill her if she called police. Police subsequently learned of this and upon arrival, client jumped from balcony to evade police.

Charges withdrawn by Crown Attorney.

R. v. O.P.

Client charged with assaulting his sister.

Result: Charge withdrawn.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

R. v. D.M.

Client was charged with sexually assaulting his wife. It was alleged that he had assaulted her and after being released on bail, returned to her home and sexually assaulted her. He was charged with Sexual Assault, Assault, Criminal Harassment, Failing to Comply with his Recognizance and several other offences.

Found “not guilty” of all charges after trial.

R. v. H.H.

Client charged with Sexual Assault. It was alleged that he forced another woman who lived in the same apartment building with him, to have sexual intercourse. He denied this allegation and gave a motive for this woman to fabricate the story.

Found “not guilty” by jury at the Superior Court of Justice

R. v. T.T.

Client charged with two counts of Sexual Assault, Kidnapping, and Forcible Confinement. It was alleged that he met a girl in Quebec and kidnapped her. While being kidnapped, it was alleged that he forced her to engage in sexual intercourse. Client adamantly denied the allegations and although admitted to having sexual intercourse, he maintained that it was consensual.

Found “not guilty” of all charges by a jury at the Superior Court of Justice

R. v. E.T.

Client charged with two counts of Sexual Assault, two counts of Sexual Interference, Assault with Weapon, and Assault. Client was alleged to have sexually assaulted his step-daughter on numerous occasions. He was also alleged to have used excessive force in disciplining his child

Discharged of all counts after a preliminary hearing.

R. v. G.W.

Client charged with Sexual Assault. It was alleged that after meeting with the complainant at a bar, he offered her a ride home. On the way home, he stopped his vehicle in an empty parking lot and forced her to have sexual intercourse.

Result: Trial before a jury at the Superior Court of Justice; at the end of my cross-examination, the Crown stayed the charge.

R. v. F.F.

Client was charged with Sexual Assault. It was alleged that he held a girl inside his apartment and forced her to have oral sex. Client’s position was that he was not even present and she performed oral sex on another individual.

Found “not guilty” by a jury at the Superior Court of Justice.

R. v. T.C.

Client charged with Gang Sexual Assault and Forcible Confinement. It was alleged that he and others forced a young girl to perform oral sex on them. He denied that he was even present while this was happening and knew nothing about it.

Charge withdrawn during preliminary inquiry

DRUG OFFENCES

R. v. M.C.

Client charged with Importing Opium, the largest opium importing case in Canada. Opium imported from Iran, hidden in various objects in industrial shipping containers. Client allegedly confessed to it and several items linking client to the shipment seized by police.

Client found not guilty by a jury after a lengthy trial at the Superior Court of Justice

R. v. P.C.

Client was charged with Producing Marijuana and Possession of Marijuana for the Purpose of Trafficking. Police executed a search warrant at his home and found approximately 400 marijuana plants growing. The client did not deny this. At trial, I attacked the search warrant itself and argued that the police lied in their grounds to obtain the warrant.

Attack on the warrant successful; charges dismissed

R. v. L.B.

Client allegedly trafficked a substance held out to be cocaine to an individual on the porch of a house. Police were conducting surveillance and claimed to have seen the whole thing. A police officer testified that he was certain the individual who trafficked was L.B.

client found “not guilty” after a trial at the Superior Court of Justice

R. v. J.C.

Client charged with Trafficking Cocaine after he allegedly sold cocaine to an undercover police officer. Although this deal was allegedly witnessed by other officers, the client testified that he was not involved. In fact, his position was that the officer was lying and that he told the officer to get lost.

Result: Jury could not reach a unanimous decision and the Crown subsequently chose not to proceed on the case.

R. v. R.B.

Client charged with Trafficking Cocaine and other offences after he allegedly sold cocaine to an undercover officer. Client testified that he did not sell the officer anything but instead, told him where he could find cocaine as he had just located some himself.

Client found “not guilty” of trafficking cocaine by a jury at the Superior Court of Justice.

R. v. D.Y.

Client charged with Trafficking Cocaine, Possession of Marijuana for the Purpose of Trafficking, and two counts of Possession of Proceeds of Crime. Client alleged to have sold a quantity of crack cocaine to an undercover officer. The police subsequently executed a search warrant at the client’s residence and discovered marijuana and money which they claimed was proceeds from selling drugs.

Charges withdrawn after a preliminary hearing.

R. v. A.P.

Client charged with Trafficking Marijuana, Possession of Marijuana, and Possession of Proceeds of Crime. It was alleged that he was a drug dealer and had sold marijuana to a student in a high school washroom.

All charges withdrawn.

R. v. D.B.

Client charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking, Possession of Cocaine and Possession of Proceeds of Crime. Police received information that the client had stabbed someone the day before and went to his place to arrest him. They knocked on his door and lied about their identity. Upon opening the door, naked at the time, D.B. was arrested. He asked to put on pants and the police claimed that cocaine and money were in his pants pocket. I argued that the client’s rights under the Charter rights were infringed as the police entered unlawfully and further, that they had no right to arrest him in the first place.

Charter application successful; all charges dismissed at the Superior Court of Justice.

R. v. C.G.

Police entered a bar and searched all of its occupants. Police claimed that they observed the client throw a bag containing a large amount of cocaine and that the client fought the police upon his arrest. Client charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking and Assaulting a Police Officer.

After two days of trial, the Crown “stayed” the charges.

R. v. T.C.

Police arrested T.C. after a chase through the hallways of an apartment building. Upon stopping him, they searched his pockets. I argued that they violated his rights as they had no grounds to stop and search him.

Charter argument successful; Charges dismissed after trial.

R. v. A.F.

Client charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking and Possession of Cocaine. Police stopped the client’s vehicle and upon searching the vehicle, discovered a quantity of cocaine and indications of trafficking. Client claimed that his rights under the Charter were violated.

Charges withdrawn after Charter application filed.

R. v. S.G.

Client charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking. Upon executing a search warrant at the client’s address, police locate a quantity of cocaine hidden in the rafters in the basement. Client maintained that he had no idea that the cocaine was there.

Charge withdrawn after successful discussions with the Crown Attorney.

R. v. G.M.

Client charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking. Police arrested client and upon searching him, discovered a large quantity of crack cocaine.

Charge withdrawn by Crown Attorney.

R. v. K.F.

Client charged with Possession of Marijuana for the Purpose of Trafficking. Police officers found a vehicle parked suspiciously on the side of the road. There was nobody inside. Police officers went inside the vehicle and found a duffel bag full of marijuana. They later saw K.F. come to the vehicle with a can of gas. He was arrested.

Charge withdrawn at trial.

R. v. S.H.

All charges dismissed after trial

R. v. O.P.

Charged with Possession of Cocaine. Police stopped the client in his vehicle and after a search, located a quantity of crack cocaine. It was our position that the police violated the client’s rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that there were no grounds to stop the vehicle or conduct a search.

Charge was withdrawn after a successful Crown pretrial.

R. v. J.G

Client charged with Possession of Cocaine. Police allegedly stopped the client and upon searching him, discovered a quantity of cocaine.

Charge withdrawn after Crown pre-trial.

R. v. N.T.

Charged with Possession of Cocaine. Police were conducting surveillance on a known drug dealer. They observed my client enter this drug dealer’s vehicle and exit a short time later. Police stopped client and arrested him and discovered a quantity of cocaine on him.

Charge withdrawn after successful Crown pretrial.

R. v. T.C.

Charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking. Police attended at a known “crack house” and found my client within. A large quantity of cocaine was found there as well as indicia of trafficking.

Charge withdrawn after a successful Crown pretrial.

R. v. A.M.

Client charged with Possession of Ecstasy and Fail to Comply with Undertaking. Police officers stopped A.M. and began questioning him. They learned that he had earlier been charged and released on an Undertaking. Upon his arrest for this offence, they located ecstasy. It was our position that the police violated his Charter rights and had no reason to stop and detain him in the first place.

All charges withdrawn.

R. v. S.A.

Police were conducting undercover buys with several people and began a large scale investigation into a drug ring. Client charged with Conspiracy to Traffic Cocaine and Trafficking in Cocaine.

Charges withdrawn after preliminary hearing.

R. v. S.W.

Client charged with Possession of Marijuana. Police arrested my client and found a quantity of marijuana on him.

Charge withdrawn.

R. v. O.P.

Client charged with Possession of Marijuana. Police allegedly observed client committing Highway Traffic Act violations and stopped his vehicle. Upon speaking to client, the police officer alleged he could smell marijuana emanating from within. The officer discovered marijuana after a search of the vehicle. I alleged that the police had no right to stop the vehicle, question the driver about marijuana or search the vehicle.

Charge withdrawn.

FIREARMS AND WEAPONS OFFENCES

R. v. M.P.

Client charged with Possession of a Loaded Restricted Firearm and various other firearm offences. Police officers observed the client within an apartment hallway. When they approached the client, they claimed to see a firearm sticking out of his pocket. The client took off running and the police followed him outside and observed him thrown the gun in the woods. A police dog found the gun moments later. The client denied that he ever had this gun and claimed the police were lying.

Client found “not guilty” of all charges by a jury at the Superior Court of Justice

R. v. K.T.

Client charged with Possession Prohibited Firearm with Ammunition, and numerous other firearm offences. A police officer pulled over the client’s vehicle over a purported Highway Traffic Act offence. The officer claimed to see a bag of marijuana “falling” out of the client’s pocket and upon grabbing it, felt a firearm in the client’s waistband. The grounds to stop and search the client were fabricated and violated the client’s rights.

All charges withdrawn after successful preliminary hearing.

R. v. P.O.

Client charged with numerous Firearms offences. It was alleged that he attended at the home of an individual and shot up the home, shooting through windows and doors. He subsequently ran away. The police were called and ultimately stopped a vehicle in which the client was an occupant. Upon speaking to him, he ran from the police and a handgun was found in the area in which he ran. Client testified that he knew nothing about the gun and was not involved in the shooting.

Client found “not guilty” of all charges after trial at the Superior Court of Justice.

R. v. R.W.

Client charged with Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, Disguise with Intent, Possession of a Loaded Prohibited Weapon and various other Firearm related offences. It was alleged that he, and others, attended at a home and attempted to commit a “home invasion”

Result: All charges withdrawn after the preliminary hearing.

R. v. S.E.

Client charged with Possession of a Restricted Firearm and numerous other firearm related offences. Police attend at his house and locate a firearm in a coat hanging in his bedroom closet.

Charge withdrawn at the Superior Court of Justice

R. v. K.S.

Client charged with Possession of a Restricted Firearm with Ammunition and several other firearm related offences. Police officers in an unmarked vehicle were stopped at a traffic light beside K.S.’s vehicle. Police claimed that they saw K.S., the driver, smoking marijuana. They subsequently pulled over the vehicle and upon searching the vehicle, located a loaded firearm. It was the client’s position that his rights under the Charter were violated.

After a contested preliminary hearing, the charges were stayed.

R. v. R.P

Client charged with a “home invasion” (Robbery with a Firearm, Break and Enter, Possession of a Firearm; sawed off shotgun). It was alleged that the client broke into a home and robbed the owner. Police were called and allegedly found the client in possession of a sawed off shotgun. It was alleged that the client’s Charter rights were violated.

All charges stayed by a judge at the Superior Court of Justice.

R. v. G.M.

Client charged with Carry Concealed Weapon and t found to be in possession of a “flick” knife.Possession of a Prohibited Weapon. Clien

Charge withdrawn by Crown Attorney

R. v. A.M.

Client charged with Weapons Dangerous. Police officers stopped A.M. to investigate him. During this investigation a knife was located on him. It was our position that the police violated his Charter rights as they had no lawful reason to stop and detain him in the first place.

Charge withdrawn.

MURDER/MANSLAUGHTER

R. v. T.T.

Client charged with First Degree Murder. It was alleged that he, along with several others, followed victim with the intention of killing him. Victim suffered injuries inflicted by a bat and several stab wounds. Police found DNA evidence linking client to the confrontation.

Client found not guilty by a jury after a lengthy trial.

R. v. T.S.

Client charged with Murder after a shoot out that took place outside of the nightclub. The shoot out resulted in the death of one person and the wounding of at least one other. Client’s position was that he was not the shooter.

Client found guilty of Careless Use of Firearm only.

R. v. J.C.

Client charged with Murder. It was alleged that client’s friend was robbed by two individuals. Client and friend subsequently went to the home of these individuals armed with a sawed off shotgun. A fight broke out at the home and the gun was discharged. One of the two individuals was killed and the other was injured. Despite going to the home with the shotgun, an issue was whether the client was acting in self-defence.

Client found guilty of possession of a prohibited weapon only.

R. v. C.A.

An individual was murdered after a drug deal went bad. C.A. was charged with Accessory After The Fact To Murder after allegedly trying to help one of those involved in the murder escape.

Charge withdrawn.

R. v. B.A.

Client charged with Attempt Murder and various other offences. Police alleged that client walked up to a known gang member with the intention of murdering him. Client was armed with a handgun and walked up to the victim and pointed a gun at his head. One gunshot was fired and the complainant suffered significant injuries.

Charge of Attempt Murder withdrawn after successful Crown pretrial.

R. v. R.M.

Client charged with Attempt Murder and various firearm offences. It was alleged that he waited inside a stairwell in an apartment building. When the victim walked by, he shot the victim. The shooting was recorded on a surveillance video but there was a question as to the identity of the shooter.

All charges stayed at the Preliminary Hearing

ROBBERY

R. v. A.E.

Three individuals attended at a party and held up the people there. The people were robbed of their money and jewellery. It was alleged that A.E. was one of the three individuals and he was charged with Robbery with a Firearm, Disguise with Intent, Point Firearm and several other offences. The sole issue in this case was the identity of the “robbers”.

Client found “not guilty” of all charges by jury.

R. v. L.G.

It was alleged that the client and others approached an individual at a mall and robbed him of his property. It was also alleged that weapons were involved. Client’s position was that he was not involved.

Found “not guilty” of all charges after trial.

R. v. A.F.

Client charged with Robbery and Fail to Comply with Probation. It was alleged that the client and others robbed and beat a man in an apartment lobby. The robbery was captured on video. Despite this, client claimed he was not involved.

Client discharged after preliminary hearing.

R. v. A.M.

Client charged with Robbery and Possession of Prohibited Weapon. It was alleged that while at school, the client cornered the complainant in the stairwell, brandished a knife, and took the complainant’s property.

Charges withdrawn after discussions with the Crown Attorney.

R. v. R.P.

All charges stayed by a judge at the Superior Court of Justice.

R. v. S.A.

Client charged with two counts of Robbery with a Firearm, Disguise with Intent and various other firearm related offences. It was alleged that when the police attended at the client’s home to arrest him, a firearm was found.

Client found “not guilty” of all charges after trial.

R. v. A.M.

Client charged with Robbery, Forcible Confinement, Assault, and Use Firearm in the Commission of an Offence. It was alleged that this was a “home invasion” where client and another male entered into a home and taped up the individuals and robbed them.

All charges stayed after a contested preliminary hearing.

R. v. B.G.

Client charged with Robbery. Client allegedly robbed the complainant and fought the complainant when there was an attempt to recover the money.

Charge withdrawn.

R. v. M.O.

Client charged with Robbery, Forcible Entry, Break and Enter with Intent, Assault. Client charged after he allegedly broke into the complainant’s home and pulled out a firearm. Complainant alleged that he was beaten as client stole his property.

Charges withdrawn by Crown Attorney.

R. v. A.M.

Client charged with Robbery. A courier dropped off a package at the client’s home and claimed that the client robbed her at that time. The client adamantly denied this.

Charge withdrawn after discussions with the Crown Attorney

CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION/GANG OFFENCES

R. v. G.M.

Client charged with Criminal Organization offences after the police stopped a vehicle in which he was an occupant and discovered evidence of a Fraud ring: credit cards and identification in others’ names.

Criminal Organization charges withdrawn.

R. v. L.M.

Client charged with various Criminal Organization offences as part of “Project Kryptic”. This project involved the prosecution of an alleged Toronto street gang, the Crips. Among other things, it was alleged that the client was involved in firearm offences.

Charges withdrawn after a contested preliminary hearing.

R. v. T.S.

Client charged numerous Criminal Organization offences as part of “Project Flicker”. This project involved the prosecution of an alleged Toronto street gang, the Ardwick Blood Crew. It was alleged that T.S. was high up in this “gang” and among other charges, he was charged with Conspiracy to Commit Murder.

Charge of Conspiracy to Commit Murder withdrawn; client pleaded guilty to one of the other, lesser, charges

THEFTS AND SHOPLIFTING

R. v. M.S.

Client charged with Theft Under after allegedly shoplifting. When stopped by security guards, client found to be in possession of the stolen items.

Charge withdrawn.

R. v. N.S.

Client charged with Theft Over, Possession of Property Obtained by Crime, and Fail to Comply with Recognizance. It was alleged that she participated in stealing a vehicle.

All charges withdrawn

R. v. N.T.

Client charged with Theft Over $5000, Possession of Property Obtained By Crime Over $5000, and Possession of Burglary Tools. Client was allegedly found in possession of recently stolen property.

Charges stayed on day of trial.

R. v. P. G

Client charged with shoplifting. Security guards stopped the client exiting a store and discovered that she had stolen property on her.

Charge withdrawn.

FRAUDS AND WHITE COLLAR CRIMES

R. v. Y.B.

Client charged with Fraud Over $5000 and various other fraud related offences. Client allegedly worked for a store and was falsifying gift card amounts. As she was an employee, there was a Breach of Trust component. Client adamantly denied doing this.

Found “not guilty” of all charges by jury at the Superior Court of Justice.

R. v. J.G.

Client charged with Fraud Over $5000. Client was alleged to have defrauded a limousine companies of a large sum of money as he and his business associates used these services to get around. It was alleged that he had no intention to pay for the services.

Charge stayed after judicial pre-trial.

R. v. A.A.

Client charged with Fraud and Uttering a Forged Document. It was alleged that she presented false information to a bank and obtained credit by fraud.

Charges withdrawn.

R. v. F.T.

Client charged with Fraud. It was alleged that the client attended at a Money Mart location and cashed a fraudulent cheque

Charge withdrawn by Crown Attorney

R. v. S.D.

Client charged with Obtain Credit by False Pretenses and Utter Forged Document. It was alleged that the client obtained a credit card using false identification.

All charges withdrawn.

R. v. C.S.

Client charged with two counts of Fraudulent Use of Credit Cards and numerous other Fraud related offences. It was alleged that was caught on camera using these cards and statements were made upon arrest.

All charges withdrawn.

R. v. S.D.

Client charged with Fraud Over after allegedly falsely reporting that his vehicle had been stolen. Police claimed that it was a scam to get proceeds from the insurance company.

Charge withdrawn after Preliminary Hearing.

R. v. D.H.

Client charged with Possession of Counterfeit Money after it was alleged he tried to pay for several items at a store with counterfeit money

Charge withdrawn.

OFFENCES AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

R. v. R.M.

Client charged with Obstruct Police Officer and Failing to Comply with his Recognizance. Upon being approached by the police, the client gave a false name. He subsequently gave his real name and it was discovered that he was breaching his bail conditions.

Charges dismissed after trial

R. v. D.H.

Client was arrested for two counts of Assault with a Weapon. At the time of arrest, the client identified himself falsely. He was taken to the police station and processed under this false name. His real identity was later determined and he was subsequently charged with Obstructing Justice.

All charges were withdrawn.

R. v. C.S.

Client charged with Obstruct Justice, and Acknowledge Bail in False Name after allegedly doing same.

All charges withdrawn.

R. v. B.L.

Client charged with Attempt Obstruct Justice. It was alleged that B.L. participated in the breaching of Recognizance conditions.

Charge withdrawn.

R. v. K.A.

After appearing for Court on unrelated charges, the client did not show up at one of her court dates. A bench warrant was issued for her arrest and she was subsequently arrested and charged with Fail to Appear. It was her position that although she wished to go to Court, she was unable to do so.

Client found “not guilty” after a contested trial.

R. v. A.M.

Client charged with Fail to Appear after allegedly missing a court appearance.

Charge withdrawn by Crown Attorney

R. v. M.M.

Client previously been sentenced to a Conditional Sentence. He was alleged to have breached this sentence five times and called me to represent him.

Charges withdrawn after discussions with the Crown Attorney

R. v. O.P.

After successfully obtaining bail for the client, he was alleged to have breached three conditions of this bail.

Charges withdrawn after discussions with Crown Attorney

R. v. E.T.

After having been released on bail, client charged with breaching the bail by not reporting a change of address.

Charge withdrawn after discussion with the Crown Attorney

YOUTH COURT CASES

R. v. T.P.

Client charged with Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking and Failing to Comply with Probation. Police saw T.P. riding his bicycle at night time and believed that he was subject to Probation with a condition that he could not be out at that time without certain permission. The police stopped T.P. and investigated him. They subsequently arrested him for breaching his probation and upon arrest, located a quantity of cocaine. I argued that the police violated his Charter rights and had no grounds to stop, detain, question, or search him.

Charter application was successful and all charges dismissed.

R. v. S.C.

Client charged with Assault with Weapon. It was alleged that while at school, client brandished a knife and assaulted a fellow student.

Charge withdrawn after successful meeting with the Crown Attorney

R. v. A.M.

Charges withdrawn after discussions with the Crown Attorney.

BAIL HEARINGS AND BAIL REVIEWS

R. v. M.R.

Client charged with Importing Cocaine and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Cocaine.

Released on bail.

R. v. K.J.

Client charged with Possession of Loaded Restricted Firearm and other firearm related offences. Police executed a search warrant at the client’s home and found a loaded firearm and a quantity of drugs.

Released on bail.

R. v. J.K.

Charged with Robbery with Firearm, Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, Disguise with Intent. Client arrested for robbing a jewellery store and conspiring to rob a second jewellery store. Over a million dollars in jewellery was stolen.

Released on bail.

R. v. A.M.

Client charged with Trafficking Cocaine, Possession of Cocaine for the Purpose of Trafficking, Possession of Proceeds of Crime. Client arrested after allegedly selling cocaine to an undercover police officer. Upon arrest, client found with a further quantity of cocaine and proceeds of crime.

Released on bail

R. v. C.H.W.

Client charged with Attempt Murder and Aggravated Assault. It was alleged that he stabbed his roommate after a drunken dispute. The victim suffered significant injuries.

Released on bail

R. v. K.B.

Client charged with Possession of Marijuana for the Purpose of Trafficking, Possession of a Prohibited Firearm , Careless Storage of Ammunition and various other firearm offences. Police execute a search warrant at client’s condo and discover several kilograms of marijuana, a sawed-off shotgun and ammunition.

Client released on bail at the Superior Court of Justice after a successful bail review (appeal)

EXTRADITION

R. v. Y.C.

Client arrested in Canada. The United States of America sought extradition of him for racketeering and human trafficking.

Released on bail.

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES

R. v. D.B.

Charter application successful; all charges dismissed at the Superior Court of Justice.

R. v. T.C.

Charter argument successful; Charges dismissed after trial.

R. v. A.F.

Charges withdrawn after Charter application filed.

R. v. K.S.

After a contested preliminary hearing, the charges were stayed.

R. v. R.P.

All charges stayed by a judge at the Superior Court of Justice.

R. v. A.M.

All charges withdrawn.

R. v. O.P.

Charge was withdrawn after a successful Crown pretrial.

R. v. S.P.

Charge withdrawn after a Charter application brought.

Brian Ross is a founding partner at Canada’s largest criminal Law firm, Rusonik, O’Connor, Robbins, Ross & Angelini, LLP. Prior to founding this firm, Brian was a partner at Pinkofskys, a leading law firm famous for its vigorous defence of its clients.

Nominated in 2023 for the Best Lawyers Award in Criminal Law

Candidates who are nominated for consideration are voted on by currently recognized lawyers working in the same practice area and located in the same geographic region. Our awards and recognitions are based purely on the feedback we receive from these top lawyers.

REQUEST A CONSULTATION

A criminal record can have lifelong ramifications. Don't take a chance with an inexperienced attorney. I will fight to get your life back as I have done with countless others before you.

(416) 658-5855

Brian Ross is professional, straightforward, and honest. After we reviewed my case I didn't have high hopes for a positive outcome because there really wasn't much for him to work with. However, come court date, charges were withdrawn!! It had all happened so fast. I am so grateful for Brian Ross and his team. He didn't give up on my case and he definitely made lemonade out of like a 1/4 of a lemon. I would 100% use their services again - hopefully I won't have too.

Kate Rice

Money well spent! With all the issues with my case Brian gave me hope. I would definitely recommend spending the cash to hire Brian as he is an amazing lawyer. Watching him work I knew I had great chances. I feel like I have a new lease of life now with this behind me. All charges dropped which I could not imagine. Thank you to you and your team on helping me with this. Best lawyer in the city!!!

Jan Lane

I had a great experience hiring Brian for my case. From the beginning he was very direct and honest. He was confident in his prediction and his prediction was correct. Brian did an incredible job. He is highly knowledgeable in his field. He was thorough and very well experienced. I do highly recommend Brian!!

Anita Wong

As a young professional, the weight of a conviction was staggering, and would have greatly affected my ability to work in my chosen profession. Hiring Mr. Ross was the best way to guarantee against such effects. Throughout, Brian was present, helpful, positive, and supportive; hard-working and diligent. It was truly a pleasure to work with him, and a relief to get the call that Mr. Ross had accomplished what he initially set out to do. Consider this a sincere “Thank You” and commendation.

Kylie S

CONTACT BRIAN ROSS

Mr. Ross is a member of the Criminal Lawyer’s Association and Legal Aid Ontario’s “Extremely Serious Matters” Panel, consisting of criminal lawyers deemed to have the proven experience necessary to conduct trials in the most serious of criminal matters.

36 Lombard Street, Suite 100
Toronto, M5C 2X3
(416) 658-5855
[email protected]

RECENT SUCCESSES