Recent Cases

SOME OF EVERSTONE LAW CRIMINAL CASES

CRIMINAL DEFENCE LAWYER – Criminal Code of Canada, Controlled Drugs Substances Act; etc. YOUTH OFFENCES CRIMINAL DEFENCE LAWYER (YOUNG OFFENDERS LAWYER) – Youth Criminal Justice Act.

  • Sexual Assault & Sexual Interference
    R v. M.A. – (Sexual Assault & Sexual Interference (against a Minor)) – Sexual Assault & Sexual Interference Criminal Defence Lawyer Toronto

    Accused charged with Sexual Assault and Sexual Interference against a Minor, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Under the legislation, these offences carry a mandatory minimum jail sentence. Complainant was a minor at the time of the alleged offence. During pretrial, an application was brought at the Ontario Court of Justice for the production of third-party counselling records of the complainant. The application was granted. At trial, Criminal Defence lawyer, challenged the evidence, including statements contained in the third-party records, along with reliability and testimony of the complainant’s version of events on cross examination. After the completion of trial, the court dismissed all charges against the client. No Criminal Record, No conviction.

  • R v. R.H – Impaired Operation
    R v. R.H – (Impaired Operation (Care and Control) & Refusal to Provide Breath Sample & Public Intoxication) – DUI Lawyer Sudbury – Sudbury Impaired Driving Criminal Defence Lawyer

    Accused Charged with Impaired Operation, Refusal to Provide Sample, and Public Intoxication. The context in which the charges arose involved a motor vehicle that was parked but was on. The assigned prosecutor was seeking a conviction with respect to these charges, specifically a mandatory fine and a driving prohibition. Accused faced severe immigration consequences - deportation if convicted of these criminal charges. After successful pretrial discussions, this matter was settled by way of resolution to a provincial non-criminal code offence of public intoxication contrary to the Liquor License Act. Criminal Charges Withdrawn. No Deportation. No criminal conviction registered against client. No Criminal Record.

  • R v. J.B
    R v. J.B – (Impaired Operation (Care and Control) & Operation While Impaired – Blood Alcohol Concentration (Over 80)) – DUI Lawyer Milton

    Accused Charged with Impaired Operation/Driving and Over 80 contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. The context in which the charges arose involved a motor vehicle accident. The assigned prosecutor was seeking a conviction with respect to these charges, specifically a mandatory fine and a driving prohibition. Accused faced severe immigration consequences - deportation if convicted of the charges. After successful pretrial discussions, this matter was resolved by way of a lesser included offence of Careless Driving - Highway Traffic Act offence. Criminal Charges Withdrawn. No Deportation. No conviction registered against client.


  • R v. P.K.
    R v. P.K.- (Impaired Operation (Care and Control) & Refusal to Provide Breath Sample & Resisting Arrest) – DUI Lawyer Newmarket

    Accused charged with Impaired Operation/Driving; Refusal to provide a Breath Sample; and Resisting Arrest contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Assigned prosecutor was seeking a conviction with respect to the charges – mandatory fine and a driving prohibition and, Jail after trial. Accused faced severe immigration consequences - deportation if convicted of the charges. After successful pretrial negotiations, the matter was resolved to a lesser included offence to a discharge and probation. Criminal Charges Withdrawn. No Deportation. No conviction registered against client.


  • R v. J.L.
    R v. J.L. – (Assault) – Domestic Assault Lawyer Brampton

    Accused charged with assault. The charges arose in a domestic context - Boyfriend/Girlfriend. Crown prosecutor was seeking Jail time. After successful pretrial discussions, the matter was resolved by means of no jail.


  • R v. S.S.
    R v. S.S.- (Impaired Operation (Care and Control) & Over 80) – DUI Lawyer St. Catharines

    Accused charged with Impaired Operation and Over 80 under the Criminal Code of Canada. Assigned prosecutor was seeking a conviction with respect to the charges and Jail after trial. Accused faced severe immigration consequences - deportation if convicted of the charges. After successful pretrial negotiations, the matter was resolved to a lesser included offence with a discharge and probation. Criminal Charges Withdrawn. No Deportation. No conviction registered against client.


  • R v. X.X
    R v. X.X- (Uttering Threat) – Domestic Uttering Threat Lawyer Brampton

    Accused Charged with Utter Threat contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. The facts of the case were in a domestic context. After successful advocacy and pretrial negotiations, the charges were withdrawn.


  • Assault Lawyer Toronto - Sexual Assault Lawyer Toronto
    R v. H.S.- (Assault, Sexual Assault, Criminal Harassment, Forcible Confinement, Utter Threat) - Assault Lawyer Toronto - Sexual Assault Lawyer Toronto - Criminal Harassment Lawyer Toronto - Forcible Confinement Lawyer Toronto – Uttering Threat Lawyer Toronto)

    Accused charged with multiple offences contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Alleged facts involved serious allegations of violations. Based on the facts of the case, Criminal Lawyer Mississauga conducted pretrial with the assigned prosecutor. The prosecutor was seeking serious Jail time. When the Criminal Lawyer at the firm analyzed the disclosure and the totality of the evidence, there were many inconsistencies. After successful negotiations, all charges were withdrawn against the client due to no reasonable prospect of conviction. All Criminal Charges withdrawn. No Deportation.


  • R v. M.K.
    R v. M.K. - (Assault x2 & Uttering Threat) – Domestic Assault / Uttering Threats Lawyer Brampton

    Accused charged with Assault and Utter threat contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. The alleged charges were in a domestic context - husband and wife. The assigned Crown Prosecutor was seeking a conviction with respect to these charges. However, after successful pretrial negotiations with the Crown Prosecutor, the accused was granted a peace bond and the charges were withdrawn. No conviction.


  • R v. D.P
    R v. D.P (Assault) – Assault Lawyer Brampton

    Accused charged with Assault (simpliciter) contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. The context of the situation was a road rage incident. The Crown Prosecutor was seeking a Discharge with probation. However, after successful advocacy at the Ontario Court of Justice by Criminal Lawyer, the accused was sentenced to a discharge without any probation conditions. No conviction registered against client.


  • R v. M.U.
    R v. M.U. – (Assault) – Domestic Assault Lawyer Brampton

    Accused charged with Assault contrary the Criminal Code of Canada. The allegations were in a domestic situation. Husband and wife argument. The Crown Prosecutor was seeking a conviction as the accused has repeated an assault on the same complainant. The Crown was seeking a conviction at sentencing. However, after successful advocacy and negotiations by Criminal Lawyer the accused was sentenced to Discharge. No conviction registered against client.


  • R v. N.M (Criminal Harassment)
    R v. N.M (Criminal Harassment) – Criminal Harassment Lawyer Brampton

    Accused was charged with Criminal Harassment contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. The alleged facts of the case were in a domestic context. Due to the serious circumstances of the offence, the Crown Prosecutor was seeking a period of incarceration (Jail). However, after fierce and successful negotiations during pretrial at the Ontario Court of Justice, the matter was resolved by means of no jail.


  • R v. V.D.
    R v. V.D. (Assault) - Domestic Assault Lawyer Brampton

    Accused charged with Assault contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Husband/Wife argument in a domestic context. Based on the facts of the case, the Crown Prosecutor was seeking a conviction at sentencing. However, after successful pretrial negotiations by Criminal Lawyer with the Crown Prosecutor and given the personal circumstances of the offender, the accused received a Discharge. No conviction registered against client.


  • R v M.R
    R v M.R (Assault) - Assault Lawyer Brampton

    Accused charged with Assault contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. This was not a domestic situation but rather in the context of neighbour disputes. The Crown prosecutor was seeking a conviction. After successful advocacy at the Ontario Court of Justice by Criminal Lawyer, the accused received a discharge. No conviction registered against client.


  • R v A.G
    R v A.G - (Assault with weapon; Assault) - Assault with Weapon Lawyer Brampton

    Accused was charged with multiple charges of Assault and Assault with weapon during a heavy gang brawl. The complainant suffered extensive injuries. However, due to weaknesses of the Crown Prosecutors case, and many triable issues, and fierce advocacy the matter was resolved via peace bond. No conviction registered against client


  • R v. R.J (Utter Threat)
    R v. R.J (Utter Threat) – Domestic Uttering Threat Lawyer Brampton

    Accused Charged with Utter Threat contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. The facts of the case were in a domestic context. Boyfriend and Girlfriend relationship. The facts indicated that the victim was fearful for her safety. After successful advocacy and pretrial negotiations, the accused was granted a discharge. No Conviction registered against client.


  • R v. B.M (Theft Under $5,000)
    R v. B.M (Theft Under $5,000) – Theft Under 5000 Lawyer Brampton

    Accused was charged with theft under $5,000 contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada, alongside a co-accused for stealing from a retail store. Given the facts of the offence, the Crown Prosecutor was seeking a conviction. However, after successful advocacy the charges were withdrawn.


  • R v K.V.
    R v K.V. (Possession of Weapon; Dangerous Weapon) – Youth Offence Lawyer/ Young Offender Lawyer Brampton

    Accused was a Young Offender charged with multiple charges on school property. After successful pretrial discussions with the assigned Crown Prosecutor, the matter was agreeable to diversion. Upon completion of the program by the accused, charges were withdrawn.


  • R v H.D. (Utter Threat)
    R v H.D. (Utter Threat) – Uttering Threat Lawyer Brampton

    Accused was a Young Offender and charged with Utter Threat contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada in the context of teen bullying. After successful pretrial discussions with the assigned Crown Prosecutor, the matter was agreeable to diversion. Upon completion of the program by the accused, charges were withdrawn.


  • R v. R.A.
    R v. R.A. (Assault) – Assault Lawyer Brampton

    Accused was a Young offender and was charged with Criminal Code offence on public grounds. After successful pretrial discussions with the assigned Crown Prosecutor the matter was agreeable to informal diversion. Upon completion of diversion by the accused, charges were withdrawn.