R. v. T.L., ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, 1000 FINCH AVENUE WEST, TORONTO:
T.L., was charged with the offences of theft under $5,000, assault with intent to resist arrest and possession of property obtained by crime under $5,000. The allegations against T.L., were that he and his two friends attended at one of the real canadian superstores located in Toronto. While in the store the three individuals were observed by store security to be concealing items on their persons and eventually attempted to leave the store without paying for any of these items. Store security approached the three parties outside of the store and attempted to place them under arrest. A struggle ensued and one of the security officers was repeatedly assaulted. Mr. Pyzer represented T.L., and was successful in having all of the charges against him withdrawn prior to a trial. There was no admission of guilt made by T.L., and as such he does not have a criminal record as a result of this charge.
R. v. B.P., ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, SCARBOROUGH, ONTARIO:
B.P., was charged with one count of theft under $5,000. It was alleged that she attended at the hudson's bay company and stole a $40.00 scarf. Mr. Pyzer was successful in having B.P.,'s charge dealt with by way of diversion. Thus, upon completing the diversion program that consisted of a charitable donation and a letter of apology, the charge against B.P., was withdrawn at the request of the crown attorney's office. As such, B.P., does not have a criminal record as a result of this incident.
R. v. K.D., ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, 311 JARVIS, TORONTO:
K.D., a young offender was charged with one count of theft under $5,000. The allegations against K.D., were that she was observed by security at a walmart store to conceal a number of items on her person and then leave the store without making any attempt to pay for the merchandise concealed on her person. K.D., was stopped by security, escorted back into the store, subsequently investigated by police and charged with the offence of theft under $5,000. The value of the items taken was $114.63. Mr. Pyzer represented K.D., and was successful in having the charge against her withdrawn prior to a trial. There was no admission of guilt made by K.D., and as such she does not have a criminal record as a result of this charge.
R. v. H.A., ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, 1911 EGLINTON AVENUE EAST, SCARBOROUGH:
H.A., an adult accused was charged with one count of theft under $5,000 (shoplifting) under the section 322 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The allegations against H.A. were that she intentionally stole several beauty products from Shoopers Drug Mart by concealing them on her person and leaving the store without making any effort to pay for them. She was stopped by the store's loss prevention officer and the alleged stolen items were recovered from on her person and in her purse. This was not H.A.'s first brush with the law. H.A. was represented by Jonathan Pyzer and Mr. Pyzer was successful in obtaining a diversion for her. All charges were successfully withdrawn, without any admission of guilt or criminal record. Five months following the withdrawal of charges, we were successful in having her fingerprints and mugshots destroyed. If handled properly and by a skilled defence lawyer, it is possible to have your charges withdrawn, without a criminal record, even if it is is not your first time being charged.
R. v. A.Z. ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE, COLLEGE PARK, TORONTO, ONTARIO.
The accused A.Z. was charged with one count of theft under $5000.00 as a result of allegations that he had stolen a box of cheese from Longos Supermarket. Despite A.Z. having previously received diversion on previous charges, Mr. Pyzer was successful at having this charge diverted. In pretrial discussions he was able to convince the Crown that his client deserved a second chance to work off his debt to the community by completing community service. As a result of Mr. Pyzer’s determination, A.Z. was again accepted into the alternative measures program and upon completing his community service, his charges were diverted and A.Z. was again able to avoid a criminal record.