BRAMPTON 289‑401‑0678
Available 24 hours by phone
Winning Against Robbery & Weapons ChargesMinimum jail sentences are the norm for gun charges now – whether the gun was real or not and regardless of whether harm was intended from its use. As a result, whenever you can find another resolution, that opportunity should be taken. Below is some of my Experience in Robbery and Weapons Charges. R v. H (2023, OCJ Brampton)Background
Client was under the age of 18 and charged along with several other friends with robbery. The client and his friends jumped a couple of kids at the mall and stole their shoes and phones. Strategy
All four young persons that were charged were given advice to be completely upfront with police about what happened upon their arrest. They all admitted their involvement and were apologetic and returned all stolen items. They were then all allowed to participate in a diversion program in which they completed community service, wrote apology letters and wrote research papers about the wrongfulness of their action. Decision/Outcome
Charges were withdrawn against all 4 individuals, based largely on my original advice about what to say to police upon their arrest. R v. G (2023, OCJ Milton)Background
Client was charged with a series of firearms offences. He and his friend “found” a gun in the park and then they were playing around with it and the gun went off and bullets went through the wall into the next door neighbour’s residence. Strategy
My client was under the age of 18 and I was able to convince the Crown Attorney that he had been influenced by the older accused who had been in trouble with the law previously. Decision/Outcome
The Crown Attorney agreed that once the older male took responsibility for the gun, all charges would be dropped against my client, and they were. R v. P (2020, OCJ Orangeville)Background
Client was charged with assault with a weapon; possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose; discharging a firearm with intent; pointing a firearm; and possession of a firearm or ammunition contrary to a prohibition order. Client runs a trucking company and received a call that one of his trailers with a million dollars of electronics had been stolen from his locked compound. He contacted Peel Police and they said they would not be responding. He then located the trailer through GPS and contacted his dispatcher and told the dispatcher to contact the Caledon OPP and that he would be going to the scene. Strategy
After extensive disclosure requests and clarifications from firearms experts, it became clear that the crown attorney could not disprove the defence theory that my client had disarmed the driver of the stolen truck and in the process, two shots were discharged into the cab of the truck. Decision/Outcome
My client plead guilty to weapons dangerous and pointing of a firearm and received an absolute discharge and no criminal record. 2016 Robbery and Weapons Offences R. v. S.Background
My client had two handguns stolen from his residence which he did not report to the police at the time. This was due to the worry that he would end up being charged with having carelessly stored them, which would result in a loss of his Firearms Acquisition Certificate and subsequently the loss of his job as a security guard. The guns ended up being found by the police as a result of them being used in the commission of other offences; the serial numbers had been filed off, but the experts were able to recover the serial numbers and trace them back to my client. As a result, he had no defence to the charges. Strategy
I had to convince the Crown that it was obviously not acceptable that he did not report the original theft of the handguns to the police, but that it was understandable given that he was worried about losing his Firearms Acquisition permits and his job. Decision/Outcome
I was able to get the Crown to understand that was the case and that my client was not a bad person, but rather someone who had made a bad decision. Ultimately I was able to convince the judge to grant him a conditional discharge. Even though the Crown had originally been seeking 4-6 months in jail, they ultimately ended up seeking a fine and a criminal record. R. v. D. - Weapons & ThreatsBackground
Client's sister had been harassed by an ex-boyfriend and a couple of his friends. In an effort to defend his sister, the client paid the men a visit and then sent them a picture of a toy gun insinuating that it was a real gun. The witnesses told police that he had shown up with the gun and was threatening them with it. The client gave a full statement to police explaining how he was going to do that, but his girlfriend talked him out of doing so. Strategy
I needed to convince the Crown that what the client had told police was the truth and that the real bad guys here were the guys who had been harassing his sister. The police officers confirmed that they had been harassing my client's sister. Decision/Outcome
The client completed some counselling for anger management, and the charges were withdrawn with him signing a peace bond to have no contact with the complainants. 2015 and prior R. v. D. (2015 Brampton) - Possession of a Prohibited Weapon and Possession of CocaineBackground
During a visit to the accused's school he was found to be in possession of a baton and cocaine. Strategy
To convince the Crown that the reason the police were slow in providing disclosure, which ultimately they did supply, was because the search was completely illegal. They demanded for no good reason that he empty his pockets, which was how they found the baton. The Crown agreed the search was improper. Decision/Outcome
Charges were withdrawn. R. v. L.F. - Robbery (2015)Decision/Outcome
Pled guilty to assault, got probation for 9 months - client was on probation at the time for an earlier robbery - these matters were in youth court R. v. C. (Brampton Court, January 2013)Background
Following a domestic argument in which alcohol was a factor, my client supposedly went downstairs and retrieved a compound bow and arrow while his wife was on the phone with police. He was charged with possession of dangerous weapons. Strategy
To prove to the crown that this was an out-of-character incident for my client, and he was attempting to rectify the situation by enrolling in alcohol abuse counseling and the Partner Assault Response Program. Decision/Outcome
Client was given a conditional discharge with probation even though the Crown was seeking a jail sentence. I was able to convince the judge that this was out of character and that the client had rectified the underlying issues. R. v. S. (Brampton Court, December 2011)Background
Client engaged in a verbal altercation during a house party, in which he pulled out a gun and fired a shot in the air; after the house party he met up with an individual and pulled a gun out of the front of his pants. He was later charged with weapons dangerous and carrying a concealed weapon. Police showed up at the client’s house and he gave them the item in question which was actually a replica gun. Strategy
To set a preliminary hearing date in order to have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, and demonstrate that this was much less serious than everyone thought at first. The Crown's position on a plea was 6-9 months in jail. A preliminary hearing date was set, and none of the witnesses were willing to come to court, which demonstrated to the Crown that they clearly did not care. Decision/Outcome
All charges were withdrawn. R. v. D. (June 2011)Background
Client forced his way into his ex-girlfriend's backyard, damaging her fence door, backyard shed, and door frame in order to retrieve some of his work tools. The police were called, and the client was arrested for Mischief Under $5,000. Strategy
I was able to convince the Crown that not only had my client built the fence and shed that he damaged, but that he had a legal right to go into the shed and get his belongings, as she had been refusing to return them to him. Decision/Outcome
Although the Crown had originally been seeking a criminal conviction and probation for 12 months, the Crown ultimately accepted my arguments and withdrew the charges. R. v. R. (April 2011)Background
Client was charged with two counts of possession of property obtained by crime. Following two major robberies (robberies allegedly committed by my client’s boyfriend) items stolen in the robberies were found in her possession. Strategy
It was clear that the client was in an extremely tough position, as she had been found in possession of the items her boyfriend and his associates had stolen. It was also clear the Crown wanted her to be a witness, and it was my job to convince her that she needed to tell the truth despite the fact that it might end up putting her boyfriend in more trouble. If she did not tell the truth, she would end up facing serious charges herself. Decision/Outcome
My client testified at the preliminary hearing, told the truth, and at the end of her testimony, the Crown immediately withdrew charges against her. R. v. I. (Brampton Court, March 2010)Background
Client, a young person, was charged with a robbery at school in which another student’s iPod was taken. Strategy
I had the client provide a full statement to police regarding his involvement. I would then use that to convince the Crown that he was not guilty of robbery. Decision/Outcome
The police repeatedly failed to provide a copy of the client’s new statement and eventually the Crown and pre-trial judge lost patience and the charges were withdrawn. R. v. W. (Brampton Ct., September 2009)Background
Client charged with knocking a kid to the ground, threatening to kill him, and taking his bike. He was arrested for robbery two days later at an unrelated location. Strategy
I encouraged the Crown Attorney to withdraw the charge because there was no evidence disclosed that linked the client with the robbery. The Crown sought further information from the police and after six months we finally received further information. When the information arrived, it became clear that a photo line-up had been shown to the victim’s father who was not present at the time of the alleged robbery but had seen the client a few hours later and his son told him ”that was the guy”. Decision/Outcome
The Crown agreed that this was completely inappropriate police work and the charges were withdrawn and the police officers in question were suspended. R. v. B. (Brampton Ct., July 2009)Background
Client charged with robbing 2 young kids outside a McDonalds'. The kids run to the local police station and get the police. The police return with the boys and the accused is still at the McDonald's. Police arrest him and find an imitation firearm in his pants when he is searched. Strategy
They clearly have the right person but the Robberies are done in such a way that it can be argued that they were not in fact robberies. Legal research also showed that the weapons offence that the accused was charged with was the wrong offence and could not be proven. I needed to convince the Crown Attorney of this and work out a plea deal. Decision/Outcome
Crown agreed to accept a plea to one count of Attempted Robbery and withdraw the other charges. The judge then gave him 12 months probation with a condition that he write letters of apology to both victims. R. v. B. (Brampton Ct., July 2009)Background
Client and 2 other males charged with robbing a young boy of his iPod and money at a bus shelter outside a local mall. The boy ran off and told security who called the police. Security checked their mall cameras and located the suspects still at the mall and they were arrested. The boy told police that my client was one of the culprits who had robbed him. Strategy
I was quite certain my client was guilty but I was not sure the young victim would be able to identify him. I would need to cross-examine him politely and carefully; pointing out the weaknesses in his observations. Decision/Outcome
During my cross-examination of the victim, he admitted that he did not believe my client had been involved and that when he saw the culprits on the security video, he just assumed my guy was one of them because he was with the other 2 guys. He then said maybe there was a fourth guy and then he became very confused and the Crown had to ask the judge to dismiss the charges. The Crown is obligated to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt and if they cannot do so, the person must be found not guilty. R. v. K. Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton Ct., 2008Background
The client was charged with the gunpoint robbery of a pizza delivery guy. Two other persons were also charged and it was alleged that 1 of the other guys held the gun. The client claimed he was innocent but had no meaningful alibi. Strategy
Convince the Crown Attorney that the evidence from the one accomplice that implicated my client was too weak to be relied upon and the charge should be withdrawn – the client was facing time in the penitentiary. Decision/Outcome
I was able to convince the Crown about the weaknesses in their case; my client signed a peace bond and the charges were withdrawn. | *Fill out this form for free,(Free case evaluation available for potential clients only) |