Murder

R. v. J.E.

Client charged with 1st degree murder for being the principal stabber of the deceased.  During pre-trial motions client entered a guilty plea to 2nd degree murder admitting to be the stabber.  The female accused that did not have any physical role in the attack on the deceased was later found guilty of 1st degree murder. 

See the news:

www.newsdurhamregion.com/article/153391

www.newsdurhamregion.com/article/153645

R. v. K.D.

Youth charged with 1st degree murder of one person and 2nd degree murder of a second person.  The killings occurred during a home invasion conducted by the deceased victims.  The accused shot and killed one of the home invaders inside the house and killed the second home invader on the front lawn of the house.  Toronto criminal lawyer Adam Weisberg convinced the judge at the preliminary inquiry to discharge the accused of first degree murder and send him to trial on two counts of second degree murder.  Acting with co-counsel, a jury later acquitted K.D. of both counts of second degree murder on the basis of self-defence.

R. v. B.C.
 
The accused was charged with participating in a home invasion robbery that led to the shooting death of one of the occupants.  Mr. Weisberg brought a motion to prevent his client from testifying at a parallel proceeding.  The charges were subsequently withdrawn.

Domestic Assault

R. v. R.C.

The accused was charged with pushing his wife to the ground while holding a baby.  The complainant was discredited in cross examination and the matter resulted in an acquittal.

R. v. J.H.

The accused was charged with assault cause bodily harm.  The complainant had serious injuries to her face that she claimed were caused by the accused, her boyfriend.  Through cross examination and other evidence it was shown that the complainant's brother was the person responsible for her injuries and not the accused.  The accused was acquitted.

R. v. L.R.

A wife and her husband got in a fight in a parking lot over who owned the family mini van during a difficult divorce.  The accused was alleged to have jumped into the mini van and scratched her husband's face with her fingernails.  The husband had injuries to his face.  The female was acquitted after trial of assaulting her husband.

R. v. H.O.

The accused and his girlfriend were having relationship difficulties.  The girlfrend accused the accused of beating her.  The complainant was discredited during trial and the accused was acquitted.

R. v. R.J.

The accused was said to have pushed his girlfriend to the ground outside of a downtown bar.  It was alleged that when they got home he pushed the complainant, slapped her and choked her.

A Charter motion was broughft because it had taken too long to get a trial date.  A stay was entered by the judge due to a violation of R.J.'s right to a trial without unreasonable delay.  R.J. has no criminal record.

Child Abuse

R. v. J.P.

A bitter separation was occurring in the background. The accused's common law spouse called Childrens Services to report that her young son and daughter had been beaten by the accused with a belt.  Childrens Services contacted the Toronto Police and a joint investigation began leading to the father being charged with assault with a weapon and assault against his two young children.  Toronto criminal lawyer Adam Weisberg brought a third party records application and gained access to Childrens Services records.  Through a series of delicate cross examinations and with the help of the third party records, Adam Weisberg was able to establish that the allegations from the children may have been caused by the mother's interference.

The accused was acquitted and now has access to his children.    

Drug Charges

R. v. A.W.

A man was charged with possession for the purpose cocaine.  The police executed a search warrant and upon entry tasered the accused.  The police claimed that the accused was advancing upon them.  The police denied any further taserings.  Toronto criminal lawyer Adam Weisberg marshalled enough evidence to prove it was likely the police had handcuffed the accused and tasered him in a cruel and unusual manner when it was no longer necessary.  Adam Weisberg spent countless hours learning everything he could about taser guns to make his cross examinations authoratative and powerful.  The accused was granted the rare remedy of a stay of proceedings.  See the story reported in the news:

www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/347195

www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=441a87ed-1d03-487b-99be-a2134405b914

www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2008/2222586.htm


R. v. D.D.

Toronto Criminal Lawyer Adam Weisberg obtained an acquittal for a man charged with possessing approximately two kilograms of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.  The value of the cocaine was estimated between $50,000 and $200,000.  The police setup surveillance at a strip club parking lot and observed a man place a bag in the back of the accused's trunk.  The accused was arrested upon returning to his car.  The accused was acquitted as the trial judge was left in a reasonable doubt because the accused's evidence afforded for the possibility of a police setup.    The accused was acquitted and has no criminal record.

R. v. K.F.

Accused charged with possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.  Police entered a residence with a search warrant after receiving and corroborating information that cocaine was being sold from the residence.  The accused and his friend were found in the bedroom area where crack cocaine, scales, and thousands of dollars were found.  The accused did not testify and was acquitted by a Superior Court Judge.

R. v. D.B.

The accused was charged with being the supplier to an individual that trafficked drugs to an undercover police officer.  He was charged with trafficking cocaine.  After trial, the accused was acquitted of the charges.

R. v. J.J.

A vehicle stop resulted in the officers discovering cocaine, marijuana, scales and a large amount of money concealed in a sports car.  The accused was charged with possessing cocaine and the other drugs for the purpose of trafficking.  At trial, the officers stop and questioning of the accused were found to have violated his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The drugs were all excluded from evidence resulting in an acquittal.

Sexual Interference

R. v. R.R.

Toronto criminal lawyer Adam Weisberg successfully obtained an acquittal after trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.  A family friend's twelve year old daughter accused the client of molesting her while she slept.

The father of the child, and former best friend of the client, claimed to have seen some possibly inappropriate conduct between his daughter and friend.  Adam Weisberg was able to demonstrate the evolution of the false allegation by the way in which the parents of the child questioned her in relation to the initial complaint. 

The client was acquitted and has no criminal record. 

Drinking and Driving

R. v. A.C.

Accused truck driver charged with care and control with a blood alcohol level over 80.  The police were found to have violated the accused's Section 8 and 10(b) Charter rights.  The breath results were excluded and the accused was acquitted.

R. v. J.H.

Accused charged with driving with blood alcohol level over 80.  He was stopped by police for a traffic violation and gave samples of his breath at the roadside and the police station.  The breath test results demonstrated J.H. was driving over the legal limit. 

The breath readings were challenged under Section 8 of the Charter and Rights and Freedoms on the basis that the roadside device was not properly calibrated. The roadside device had not been calibrated within the proper amount of time recommended by the manufacturer.  On this basis the trial judge excluded the readings and J.H. was acquitted.

R. v. T.M.

The accused was stopped and found to have readings that were more than twice the legal limit.  A Charter application was brought and the charges were stayed for unreasonable delay.  No driving prohibition and no criminal record.

R. v. A.R.

The accused was charged with over 80 and his breath results were excluded for a Section 8 Charter violation.  The accused was acquitted.

R. v. Y.G.

The accused did not provide a breath sample and was charged with refuse breath sample.  Through cross examination, Mr. Weisberg established that the demand was not a lawful demand due to the timing of the demand and the accused was entitled to not provide a sample.  Y.G. was acquitted.

R. v. M.M.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample.  The police alleged that he was pretending to try to provide a sample.  The accused was acquitted on the basis that the police did not establish that the device was working or used properly.

Assault and Assault Cause Bodily Harm

R. v. T.L.
 
The accused had no criminal record.  He was twenty years old.  He faced two counts of assault causing bodily harm and the prosecutors were seeking a lengthy jail sentence.  A “Donnybrook“ erupted inside a nightclub and flooded out onto the street.  Once the crowd settled.  Two injured men were left on the pavement outside the bar.  They both required medical attention at the hospital.  The accused was charged with sucker punching one complainant causing a concussion and breaking his teeth.  He was also charged with causing deep cuts and a post-secondary concussion to the second complainant.  Through cross examination and defence witness testimony it was established that someone else hit the first complainant.  The second complainant was discredited and the accused successfully advanced a self-defence argument resulting in acquittals on both counts.  The accused still has no criminal record.

R. v. R.S.

The client was a member of a fraternity and he was charged with mischief and assault bodily harm.  He was alleged to have defaced the campaign posters of the complainant.  The complainant alleged that when he confronted the client that he was punched out.  The complainant's credibility was attacked under cross examination successfully.  The judge acquitted the client finding that the defence of self-defence was successfully raised and that she was not satisfied that the accused had defaced the complainant's posters.

Attempted Murder

R. v. P.F.

A young man was charged with shooting another man several times over an alleged drug dispute.  The accused was discharged at the preliminary hearing after the victim's identity evidence was found not to be sufficient.

R. v. G.L.

Two men walked up to another man and shot him at close range several times.  G.L. was charged with the shooting after being identified by the victim as a long-time acquaintance.  The victim's credibility was destroyed in cross examination.  Near the end of the trial, the Crown prosecutor invited an acquittal because there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

R. v. T.P.

A young man was on video shooting a person just outside a donut store.  The shooter ran from the scene and was chased by police.  He was eventually apprehended minutes away from the shooting.

The police found a firearm on the accused.  It was determined that the bullets in the victim matched the firearm found on the accused.  After several days of trial, once the case was weakened, the charge of attempt murder was withdrawn and the accused entered a plea to discharge firearm with intent to wound.

Sexual Assault

R. v. F.W.

After a preliminary hearing and pre-trial motions the charges of sexual assault were withdrawn.

R. v. M.S.

The client was charged with sexual exploitation of an employee at his work that was under the age of eighteen.  Allegations of rape and forced oral intercourse were made against the client.  Toronto criminal lawyer, Adam Weisberg brought a motion seeking a stay of proceedings based on the inordinate delay in bringing the matter to trial.  The charges were stayed resulting in no criminal record for the accused.  

 R. v. R.M.

A young man and his friend were charged with gang sexual assault and sexual assault with a weapon.  Toronto criminal lawyer Adam Weisberg destroyed the complainant's credibility at the preliminary hearing.  Further evidence and witnesses were located to demonstrate falsehoods reported by the complainant.  Part way through the complainant's evidence at trial, Toronto criminal lawyer Adam Weisberg convinced the Crown Attorney to stay the prosecution due to the complainant's lack of credibility.  The charges were stayed resulting in no criminal record.

Firearm Possession

R. v. L.D.
 
The Crown theory of the case was that the accused was playing with an unlicensed firearm alone in a spare bedroom when the gun accidentally discharged.  A projectile (“bullet”) went clean through the accused’s knee and into a futon.  Through vigorous cross-examinations and evidence highlighted at the trial, Mr. Weisberg was able to establish that the accused was accidentally shot by his friend.  The accused was found not guilty of illegal gun possession and careless use of a firearm.

R. v. U.S.

The accused was the driver of a black Acura.  The police received a tip from a confidential informer that a black Acura was leaving a certain area with three black men in the car.  The informer told police that there would be two handguns inside that vehicle.  Based on this confidential information and a partial match to a licence plate, the police had the tactical unit conduct a high risk take down of the black Acura.  Through cross examination it was established that the police officer that received the information from the informer either intentionally tried to mislead the Court or was at the very least grossly negligent in representing the reliability of the informer.  The loaded rifle, shotgun with ammunition, asp and knife that were recovered by police were excluded from evidence resulting in acquittals for all accused.  

R. v. D.M.

After several days of preliminary hearing, the accused was discharged on all of the counts of illegal firearm possession that he faced and walked out of Court a free man.  D.M. was facing a potential minimum sentence of five years in prison.  Adam Weisberg's cross examination of the police officers made it impossible for the Crown Attorney to claim D.M. had knowledge of the loaded firearm that was tucked away in the couch he was sitting on.  The Prosecutor unsuccessfully attempted to appeal the discharge to the Superior Court.

R. v. V.K.

The accused was the driver and renter of a vehicle that had the dashboard modified.  The police had a sniffer dog canvas the vehicle.  The police with the help of the dog discovered approximately seven ounces of cocaine in the dashboard and two loaded illegal unregistered firearms.  Toronto criminal lawyer Adam Weisberg advanced an alternative suspect theory that led a jury to acquit the young man of all firearm and drug charges. 

R. v. J.W.

The accused was stopped and the passenger in the vehicle where police claimed he immediately stated "I have this" and motioned to a loaded firearm at his feet.  Toronto criminal lawyer Adam Weisberg discredited the police version of events through aggressive and pointed cross examinations.  The trial judge was not convinced that the accused uttered the statement or that he was in possession of the firearm resulting in an acquittal.

R. v. G.L.

The accused was alleged to have pointed a loaded firearm at two people.  The police claimed that he later ran from then, lost them around a corner and was then tackled.  A police dog then tracked from the point of being tackled back to a loaded firearm.  The witnesses were all discredited, including the police dog handler and the main complainant in the gun pointing allegation.  A jury acquitted the accused of all charges. 

Child Pornography

R. v. M.J

A young man was charged with criminally possessing child pornography.  The police alleged that the child pornography was on his computer and disks found in his bedroom. 

The police at the preliminary hearing were unable to prove that the items produced in evidence were in fact those seized from the client's bedroom. 

The client was discharged on the charge - this is the same result as being found not guilty after trial.

Criminal Organization

R. v. C.D. The police alleged that this man was one of the leaders of a large west Toronto gang.  The police charged him with criminal conspiracies for the benefit of a criminal organization. 

After the preliminary hearing, the criminal organization charges were withdrawn.

Assault Police Officer and Escape Lawful Custody

R. v. E.T.

The officers testified that upon questioning the passenger of a car and then checking his name in the police database that they discovered the accused had a warrant outstanding for his arrest.  The accused then struggled with the police pushing them away and making good his escape.  The police were cross examined in such a way that established there may have been racial profiling.  The crown withdrew the charges.

R. v. W.D.

The accused was pulled over by police and when the police began to question him he pushed them away and ran.  Through cross examination it was established that all the elements of the offence could not be made out.  After the cross examination of the arresting officer, the Crown invited an acquittal.

Robbery and Armed Robbery (Home Invasion)

R. v. D.L.

The accused was charged with two serious home invasion robberies involving firearms.  The minimum sentence for this charge is now five years upon conviction.  In both robberies items had been left at the scene by the robbers with DNA that traced back to D.L.  The robberies were four years apart but both involved robberies of marijuana dealers/growers.  The preliminary hearing justice committed the accused to trial.  Mr. Weisberg arranged to have the preliminary hearing ruling appealed.  The prosecutor's withdrew the charges due to the cross examinations and arguments put forward at the preliminary hearing.

R. v. A.C.

The accused was charged with robbing a massage parlour.  The matter had a lengthy history involving late disclosure of DNA evidence and the Crown failing to narrow their case.  Mr. Weisberg successfully brought an application to have the matter stayed for unreasonable delay.  The Charter motion was successful and A.C. walked away a free man with no criminal record.

“G20 Conspiracy”
 
Mr. Weisberg represented one of the young persons charged with being behind the chaos that set upon Toronto in the summer of 2010.  After several days of preliminary hearing, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges against Mr. Weisberg’s client as a result of guilty pleas being entered by other accused persons. 
 
www.thestar.com/news/article/1090736--g20-charges-dropped-against-11-as-6-plead-guilty

“Humane Society Case”
 
Mr. Weisberg represented the business manager in this case.  He was charged with conspiracy counts in relation to animal cruelty charges.  The case against the business manager was largely based on speculation, hearsay, and rumour.  Mr. Weisberg was able to convince the Crown Attorney to withdraw the case against the business manager.   Lawyers for the other accused were also able to convince the Crown to withdraw the charges because of serious legal issues and problems with the investigation.  

www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/848293--all-charges-dropped-by-crown-in-toronto-humane-society-raid