It is important to note that past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and that outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.
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.
Result: 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.
Result: All charges withdrawn after successful preliminary hearing.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.
Result: 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Result: All charges withdrawn after the preliminary hearing.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.
Result: Charge withdrawn at the Superior Court of Justice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.
Result: 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.
Result: 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
Result: 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.
Result: Charge withdrawn.
Toronto based, Brian Ross Criminal Law firm expert advisory for Arms related criminal cases – Know more
