RECENT CASE SUMMARIES

ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT:

R. v. D.G., Ontario Court of Justice, 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton:
D.G. was charged with accessory to murder after the fact. D.G. was alleged to have been present while a plan to complete a robbery took place. During the course of the robbery, an individual was shot and killed by a handgun. Sometime afterwards and that same evening, one of the alleged murderers returned to the apartment where D.G. was and advised him they had gone to do something and it had gotten messed up. It involved a shooting and that the police would be looking for three suspects. D.G. was alleged to have vacuumed the get-away car that was used in the murder and provided one of the perpetrators with a sum of cash to assist him in his escape from police detection. Mr. Pyzer represented D.G. and prior to setting the matter down for a Preliminary Inquiry, the matter was resolved by way of a guilty plea to the much less serious offence of obstruct justice and the charge of accessory to murder after the fact was withdrawn at the request of the Crown Attorney’s Office.

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT:

R. v. H.H., Ontario Court of Justice, 2201 Finch Avenue West, Etobicoke:
The accused, H.H., a young person, was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. The allegations against H.H. were that he and some friends were playing cards in the school cafeteria at lunchtime. An argument broke out between H.H. and the complainant over the cards and it was alleged that H.H. took a knife out of his bag and slashed the victim in the forearm. The victim had to be taken to the hospital in an ambulance and received several stitches as a result of this incident. Mr. Pyzer represented H.H. at Trial and was successful in having the much more serious charge of aggravated assault withdrawn upon H.H. entering a guilty plea to the less serious offence of assault with a weapon. Although the Crown Attorney’s Office sought a term of imprisonment for the accused, Mr. Pyzer was successful in having the accused sentenced to a period of probation. H.H. was very pleased with this excellent result given the nature of the original charges he was facing and the potential term of imprisonment he was able to avoid.

ASSAULT:

R. v. V.S., Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto:
The accused, V.S., worked as a security person in a bar in the Entertainment District in Toronto. The complainant was a customer of the bar who had been excluded from the bar. The complainant suffered a broken jaw during the altercation. V.S. was charged with assault causing bodily harm. On the trial date, the charge was withdrawn. Mr. Kostman was able to convince the Assistant Crown Attorney that the identification process was improper and that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction in the case.

R. v. M.I.S., Ontario Court of Justice, 2201 Finch Avenue West, Etobicoke:
The accused, M.I.S., was charged with domestic assault as a result of an altercation with his girlfriend. The allegations against M.I.S. were that he was having an argument with his girlfriend in a public place when a civilian witness observed the accused punch his girlfriend to the back of the head with a closed fist. Mr. Pyzer represented the accused and was successful in having the charge withdrawn at the request of the Crown Attorney’s Office after the trial had already started.

R. v. T.D., Ontario Court of Justice, 311 Jarvis Street, Toronto:
The accused, young offender, was charged along with two other females with assaulting a classmate. The allegations against T.D. were that T.D. and several other female students approached a fellow classmate and a fight ensued. The three co-accused were alleged to have punched and kicked the victim several times in the head. Mr. Pyzer represented T.D. and was successful in having the charge against her withdrawn at the request of the Crown Attorney’s Office.

R. v. D.A.M., Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto: D.A.M. was charged with domestic assault. The Crown Attorney’s Office alleged that D.A.M. had grabbed and bruised her partner by using violence. Mr. Pyzer represented D.A.M. and was able to get the charge against her withdrawn prior to setting a trial date by convincing the Crown Attorney’s Office to deal with this charge by way of a section 810 Peace Bond rather than by way of a criminal prosecution. As such, D.A.M. does not have a criminal record and never made any admission of guilt to these charges.

R. v. I.J., Ontario Court of Justice, 1911 Eglinton Avenue East, Scarborough:
I.J. was charged with one count of assault. The allegations were that I.J. assaulted his 90-year-old mother-in-law by pushing her down to the ground. There were three civilian witnesses to this event. Mr. Pyzer represented I.J. at Trial and the charges were ultimately withdrawn against I.J. the morning of the trial.

R. v. J.S., Ontario Court of Justice, 1911 Eglinton Avenue East, Scarborough:
The accused, J.S., a young offender, was charged with assault. The allegations against J.S. were that he was residing at a group home when he got into an altercation with one of the group home workers who said that the accused assaulted him. Mr. Pyzer was successful in having all of the charges against J.S. withdrawn.

R. v. B.R., Ontario Court of Justice, 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton:
The accused, B.R., a young person, and two friends, allegedly were involved in an altercation with a fourth youth on school property. B.R. wrote a written apology to the Complainant. Mr. Kostman was successful in having the charge against B.R. withdrawn.

R. v. A.S., Ontario Court of Justice, College Park, Toronto:
A.S. was charged with one count of assault. The allegations against A.S. were that he and his fianc? got into a verbal dispute that escalated to a physical confrontation. It was alleged that A.S. punched the complainant repeatedly in the face, giving her two black eyes. Mr. Pyzer represented A.S. and was successful in having the charge against him withdrawn prior to trial. The matter was resolved by way of a section 810 Peace Bond. As such, A.S. does not have a criminal record in relation to these charges.

R. v. D.M., Ontario Court of Justice, 1000 Finch, Toronto, Ontario:
The accused, D.M., was charged with domestic assault and mischief under $5,000. The Complainant and D.M. had been in a dating relationship for approximately eight years. At the time of the incident, the complainant was thirteen weeks pregnant with D.M.’s child. The complainant alleged that during the course of an argument over suspected infidelity, D.M. pushed her head into a wall and destroyed her cell phone. Mr. Pyzer successfully represented D.M. at trial and he was found innocent of both charges.

R. v. M.W., Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton, Ontario:
The accused, M.W., was charged with one count of domestic assault. The allegations against M.W. were that he and his wife were in their residence when they became involved in a verbal altercation. The complainant alleged that M.W grabbed her and punched her in the face numerous times. Mr. Pyzer represented M.W. and was successful in having the charge against him withdrawn prior to trial. As such, M.W. does not have a criminal record in relation to these charges.

ASSAULT CAUSING BODILY HARM:

R. v. Q.A., Ontario Court of Justice, 2201 Finch Avenue West, Etobicoke:
The young offender accused, Q.A., was charged with one count of assault causing bodily harm. The allegations were that during the lunch hour, while at school at George Vanier Secondary School, Q.A. got into a confrontation with one of his classmates. The alleged victim reported that the accused approached him, punched him in the face and then pushed him down a flight of stairs. The alleged victim had to be taken to the hospital where he received multiple stitches to his head. Mr. Pyzer represented Q.A. and was successful in having the charge against the accused withdrawn upon his completion of court sanctioned extra-judicial measures that included a letter of apology and mediation with the complainant. Q.A. does not have a criminal record in relation to this incident and there was no finding of guilt made by the court.

R. v. A.C., Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto:
A.C. was charged with domestic assault and failure to comply with her recognizance. The allegations against A.C. were that she and her fianc? got into a physical confrontation and that A.C. repeatedly scratched the Complainant about his back and face and threw a bag of dog feces at him. A.C. was released on an Undertaking with conditions that forbade her from having contact with the Complainant. A.C. was arrested within days of her initial release on allegations that she was having contact with the Complainant and in fact living with him. Mr. Pyzer represented A.C. and was successful in convincing the Crown Attorney’s Office to stay the charges against A.C. prior to setting a trial date. As such, A.C. made no admission of guilt with respect to these charges and she does not have a criminal record as a result of these incidents.

ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO RESIST ARREST:

R. v. W.M., Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto:
The accused, W.M., was charged with assault with intent to resist arrest as a result of a police traffic stop in Mississauga. The allegations against W.M. were that after the police attempted to arrest W.M. after his failing to identify himself pursuant to section 33(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, W.M. pushed the arresting police officer in the chest and attempted to flee the scene. The accused was arrested after a brief struggle and taken into police custody. Mr. Pyzer represented W.M., and was successful in having the charge against W.M. withdrawn .

BAIL HEARINGS:

R. v. D.S., Ontario Court of Justice, 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton:
The accused, D.S., was charged with pointing a firearm, possession of a loaded firearm, and possession of a large quantity of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. The allegations against D.S. were that he was involved in an altercation with another individual when he pulled out a gun, pointed it at the individual’s head and threatened to kill him, after which he fled the scene. Two days later and pursuant to a warrant for his arrest, the accused was arrested by members of the Peel Regional Police while driving his motor vehicle. A search of his vehicle incident to arrest, resulted in the police finding a loaded gun as well as a large quantity of crack cocaine. D.S. was arrested and taken into custody. Mr. Pyzer represented D.S. at his bail hearing and despite the Crown Attorney’s strenuous opposition to release, Mr. Pyzer was successful in having D.S. released on bail following a lengthy contested bail hearing.

R. v. V.W. & I.H. Superior Court of Justice, 361 University Avenue, Toronto:
V.W. & I.H. signed as sureties for the accused J.B. who was charged with the offences of fraud over $5,000 and fail to comply with a recognizance. Following a one-week trial in the Superior Court of Justice, J.B. was convicted of the offences of which he was charged and failed to show up for the sentencing. J.B. fled the country prior to his sentencing hearing and the Crown Attorney’s Office commenced an estreat hearing against the sureties in order to have the $50,000 bail monies forfeited. Mr. Kostman & Mr. Pyzer acted for both sureties and after very lengthy proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice the Crown Attorney’s Office agreed not to proceed against the sureties for any amount despite the fact that J.B. fled the country following his arrest and avoided the authorities for over one-year.

R. v. K.C.R. Ontario Court of Justice, 1911 Eglinton Avenue East, Scarborough:
The accused young person, K.R.C. was charged with two separate incidents of robbery with a firearm and multiple counts of breaching his previous bails. The allegations against K.R.C. were that he committed two armed robberies of a gas station and a convenience store while masked. At the time that these incidents were alleged to have occurred, the accused was already on two previous bails involving robbery offences and his most recent bail involved a condition of house arrest. Despite the Crown Attorney’s Office’s strenuous objections and submissions, Mr. Pyzer was successful in obtaining another bail for K.R.C. and the accused was able to continue to live with his mother whom was his surety on the previous bail.

R. v. G.R. Ontario Court of Justice, 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton:
The accused, G.R., was charged with possession of a firearm, possession of marijuana and possession of cocaine. The allegations against G.R. were that he was a passenger in a motor vehicle when members of the Peel Regional Police observed him to be drinking a bottle of beer while the vehicle was being operated by another individual. The Police stopped the vehicle and investigated the accused pursuant to the Liquor License Act. Upon investigation, the police smelled freshly burnt marijuana and investigated all of the occupants and the vehicle further. The officer’s searched the occupants and the vehicle and found a loaded gun as well as a quantity of marijuana and cocaine. All three parties were arrested and taken into custody. The two other individuals arrested in relation to this incident were denied bail. Mr. Pyzer represented G.R. at his bail hearing and despite the Crown Attorney’s fierce opposition to release, Mr. Pyzer was successful in having G.R. released on bail following a lengthy and hotly contested bail hearing.

R. v. G.N., Ontario Court of Justice, 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton, Ontario:
The accused, G.N. was charged with sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching and sexual interference. G.N. was accused of sexually assaulted his two daughters, ages four and eight. Mr. Pyzer was successful in getting the accused released on bail despite the Crown Attorney’s strenuous objections.

R. v. M.D., Ontario Court of Justice, 2201 Finch Avenue West, Etobicoke, Ontario:
The accused, M.D. was charged with robbery with a firearm, break & enter with intent, use imitation firearm, weapons dangerous, disguise with intent and pointing a firearm. It was alleged that M.D. and her two co-accused broke into a residence and robbed two female occupants while wearing disguises and in possession of firearms and an axe. Mr. Pyzer advocated aggressively on behalf of M.D. and was successful in getting her released on bail despite the Crown Attorney’s strenuous objections. The two co-accused were not as fortunate and were denied bail.

R. v. J.B., Ontario Court of Justice, 2201 Finch Avenue West, Etobicoke:
The accused, J.B. was charged with three counts of robbery with a firearm and using a firearm while committing an indictable offence. The allegations were that J.B. and 3 other individuals robbed three separate restaurants with firearms. J.B. was arrested in possession of keys to a motor vehicle that was used in connection with one of the robberies. Two firearms were found in the vehicle at the time of J.B.’s arrest. Mr. Pyzer was successful in getting the accused released on bail despite the fact that two of his co-accused had been denied bail by the Court and despite the Crown Attorney’s strenuous objections.

BAIL REVIEWS:

R. v. O.S., Superior Court of Justice, 361 University, Toronto, Ontario:
The accused., O.S. was charged with threatening bodily harm, assault with a weapon and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. The allegations against O.S. were that he was stalking his wife as he suspected she was having an affair. He was said to have followed her to work and when she exited from her motor vehicle he drove his car towards her so that the complainant had to jump out of the way to avoid being run over. O.S. was also alleged to have been yelling at the complainant threatening to kill her. O.S. was detained on the secondary ground following a bail hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice. Mr. Pyzer represented O.S. at his bail review in the Superior Court of Justice and was successful in having him released from custody on bail pending the trial of this matter.

BREAK & ENTER:

R. v. R.C. Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto:
The accused, R.C., was charged with one count of break and enter. The allegations against R.C. were that he had committed a break and enter in relation to commercial premises. The police responded to a 911 call and arrived on scene to find that the business was in disarray. Property and cash were missing from the premises. Civilian witnesses advised the investigating police officers that R.C. admitted to them that he had committed this offence. Mr. Pyzer represented R.C. and was successful in having the charge against him withdrawn prior to setting a trial date by convincing the Crown Attorney’s Office to deal with this charge by way of a section 810 Peace Bond. Thanks to Mr. Pyzer, R.C. does not have a criminal record and never made any admission of guilt to these charges.

R. v. P.W. Ontario Court of Justice, 2201 Finch Avenue West, Toronto:
The accused P.W. was charged with break and enter into a dwelling. The allegations against P.W. were that he entered into a private garage that was attached to a house and stole several thousand dollars worth of equipment and personal property. Mr. Pyzer represented P.W. and was successful in having the charge against him withdrawn prior to Trial. As such, P.W. does not have a criminal record as a result of this incident.

CRIMINAL HARASSMENT:

R. v. C.C., Ontario Court of Justice, Downsview, Ontario:
The accused, C.C., had over thirty previous convictions and was charged with two counts of criminal harassment. The allegations against C.C. were that he made numerous threatening and lewd phone calls to his neighbour of several years. Following a contested trial defended by Mr. Pyzer, C.C. was found not guilty of all charges before the Court.

R. v. D.B., Ontario Court of Justice, 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton:
D.B. was charged with criminal harassment. The allegations against her were that she harassed her former boyfriend by calling his home over one-hundred times and by attending at his family’s home and threatening his family. D.B. adamantly maintained her innocence and after much work, Mr. Pyzer was able to get the charge against her withdrawn prior to setting a trial date by convincing the Crown Attorney’s Office to deal with this charge by way of a section 810 Peace Bond. As a result of this incident, D.B. does not have a criminal record and never made any admission of guilt to these charges.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

R. v. P.W., Ontario Court of Justice, 2201 Finch Avenue West, Etobicoke:
The accused P.W. was charged with the offences of cruelty to animals and killing an animal other than cattle. The allegations against P.W. were that he repeatedly kicked his neighbour’s cat with such force that he caused the cat’s eyeball to become dislodged from the cat’s eye socket. It was alleged that P.W. was witnessed to continue to kick the cat until it lay lifeless and died. Mr. Pyzer represented P.W. and was successful in having the charge against him withdrawn the morning of Trial. As such, P.W. does not have a criminal record as a result of this incident.

DANGEROUS OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE:

R. v. R.E., Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough, Ontario:
The accused, R.E., a young offender, was charged with theft under, fail to stop for police, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and driving without a license. The allegations against R.E. were that he stole gas from a gas station and was then observed by police to be driving a motor vehicle while under-aged. When the police attempted to stop R.E.’s vehicle, R.E. fled the scene. R.E.’s motor vehicle was eventually stopped. The arresting officer suffered serious injuries in the course of his efforts to arrest R.E., who was fifteen years old at the time. Mr. Pyzer was successful in having all of the charges against R.E. stayed as a result of a successful Charter Application challenging the prosecution on the basis of a breach of R.E.’s right to a trial within a reasonable time as guaranteed by section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

DOMESTIC ASSAULT:

R. v. D.G., Ontario Court of Justice, College Park, Toronto:
The accused, D.G. was charged with domestic assault. The allegations against D.G. were that during an altercation with his girlfriend, he physically assaulted the Complainant by pushing and slapping her on multiple occasions. Mr. Pyzer successfully got the charges against D.G. withdrawn.

R. v. G., Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto:
The accused, G, was estranged from his common law wife. He was alleged to have returned to their matrimonial home, and assaulted and choked the complainant. Mr. Kostman represented G at trial. G was acquitted.

R. v. I.F., Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket, Ontario:
The accused, I.F. was charged with assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. The allegations against I.F. were that she got into an altercation with her boyfriend that led to the complainant being stabbed in the hand with a knife. The complainant was taken to the hospital where he was treated for his injuries. Mr. Pyzer was successful in getting all of the charges against I.F. withdrawn.

R. v. D.M., Ontario Court of Justice, 1000 Finch Avenue, Toronto, Ontario:
The accused, D.M., was charged with domestic assault and mischief under $5,000. The Complainant and D.M. had been in a dating relationship for approximately eight years. At the time of the incident, the complainant was thirteen weeks pregnant with D.M.’s child. The complainant alleged that during the course of an argument over suspected infidelity, D.M. pushed her head into a wall destroyed her cell phone. Mr. Pyzer successfully represented D.M. at trial and D.M. was found innocent of both charges.

R. v. W., Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough, Ontario:
The accused, W, was alleged to have struck his common law wife during an argument, and threatened her with a knife. Mr. Kostman represented W at trial. W was acquitted after trial.

R. v. D., Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto, Ontario:
It was alleged that the accused, D, struck the female complainant in a public place during the course of an argument. A security guard observed the altercation. Mr. Kostman was successful in negotiating a Peace Bond resolution and having the charge withdrawn against D.

R. v. H., Ontario Court of Justice, Downsview, Ontario:
The accused, H, was charged with Criminal Harassment. It was alleged that he made numerous threatening calls to his estranged wife. Mr. Kostman acted for H. The charges were dismissed after trial since there was only evidence of motive and no specific evidence as to the source of the telephone calls.

R. v. J.C., Ontario Court of Justice, 50 Eagle Street West, Newmarket:
J.C. was charged with one count of domestic assault and one count of Mischief Under $5,000. The allegations against J.C. were that he threw a glass cup at his wife and that he pushed the bathroom door into her. J.C. maintained his absolute innocence with respect to these allegations and Mr. Pyzer was successful in having both charges against him withdrawn prior to setting a Trial date upon J.C. entering into a section 810 Peace Bond. Thus, J.C. does not have a criminal record as a result of these allegations and has made no admission of guilt whatsoever to these charges.

R. v. D.A.M. Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto:
D.A.M. was charged with domestic assault. The Crown Attorney’s Office alleged that D.A.M. had grabbed and bruised her partner by using violence. Mr. Pyzer represented D.A.M. and was able to get the charge against her withdrawn prior to setting a trial date by convincing the Crown Attorney’s Office to deal with this charge by way of a section 810 Peace Bond. Thanks to Mr. Pyzer, D.A.M. does not have a criminal record and never made any admission of guilt to these charges.

R. v. E.G., Ontario Court of Justice, 1000 Finch Avenue West, Toronto:
E.G. was charged with two counts of domestic assault. The allegations against him were that assaulted his baby-mother on two separate incidents. In the first set of allegations, the Complainant alleged E.G. slapped her in the face and kicked her about her body. In the second set of allegations, three weeks later, the Complainant alleged E.G. pushed her down a set of stairs. Mr. Pyzer represented E.G. and following a contested Trial E.G. was acquitted of both charges before the Court. As such, E.G. does not have a criminal record.

R. v. A.S., Ontario Court of Justice, College Park, Toronto:
A.S. was charged with one count of assault. The allegations against A.S. were that he and his fianc? got into a verbal dispute that escalated to a physical confrontation. It was alleged that A.S. punched the complainant repeatedly in the face, giving her two black eyes. Mr. Pyzer represented A.S. and was successful in having the charge against him withdrawn prior to trial The matter was resolved by way of a section 810 Peace Bond. As such, A.S. does not have a criminal record in relation to these charges.

R. v. M.W., Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton, Ontario:
The accused., M.W., was charged with one count of domestic assault. The allegations against M.W. were that he and his wife were in their residence when they became involved in a verbal altercation. The complainant alleged that M.W grabbed her and punched her in the face numerous times. Mr. Pyzer represented M.W. and was successful in having the charge against him withdrawn prior to trial. As such, M.W. does not have a criminal record in relation to these charges.

DRINKING & DRIVING:

R. v. P., Ontario Court of Justice, Milton, Ontario:
The accused, P, was charged with care and control over 80, and impaired care and control. He was found sleeping in his motor vehicle with the engine running. He was searched upon arrest. A half-full bottle of liquor was found in his jacket pocket. He provided samples of his breath into an Intoxilyzer. His breath readings were 141 mg%, almost twice the legal limit. Mr. Kostman successfully defended the case, arguing that the investigating officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to request a breath sample. The breath readings were excluded as evidence.

R. v. M., Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto, Ontario:
The accused, M, was charged with Impaired Driving and Drive Over 80 mgs. Mr. Kostman successfully argued that the delay in bringing the client to trial constituted a breach of section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights. The charges were stayed.

R. v. S., Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket, Ontario:
The accused S was followed on a Sunday afternoon by an off-duty police officer due to his alleged erratic driving. He was arrested and charged with drinking and driving related offences as a result of Intoxilyzer readings of over 300 (approx. 4 times the legal limit). Mr. Kostman represented S at trial. He was acquitted.

R. v. H., Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto, Ontario:
The accused, S, was charged with Drive over 80 mg. after he was stopped at a RIDE checkpoint following a Rolling Stones concert at the Air Canada Centre. S was employed as a public transit mechanic so the consequences of a criminal conviction relating to the offence would cause him to lose his employment. Mr. Kostman represented S successfully at trial. The charge was dismissed.

R. v. W., Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough, Ontario:
The accused, W, was charged with Drive over 80 mg. He had been intercepted during a RIDE program. Although there were no specific indicia of impairment, W. provided breath samples of 130 mgs. Mr. Kostman negotiated on his behalf in an attempt to have the criminal charge reduced to a Highway Traffic Act offence. After very significant discussions with the Assistant Crown Attorney, the more serious drinking and driving charge was withdrawn, and the client entered a plea of guilty to the offence of Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act.

DRUG OFFENCES:

R. v. N.S., Ontario Court of Justice, Bracebridge, Ontario:
The accused., N.S., was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of property obtained by crime and failure to comply with a probation officer. N.S. was the driver of a motor vehicle that was stopped by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) for a speeding violation. Following the traffic stop, the officer smelled freshly burnt marijuana while speaking to the driver of the vehicle. After asking the occupants to step out of the vehicle the officer called for back-up and the vehicle was searched. During the course of the motor vehicle search, the officers found five kilograms of marijuana, twenty-eight grams of powder cocaine, $1,570.00 of cash and a digital scale. Mr. Pyzer represented N.S. and was successful in having all of the charges against him withdrawn prior to trial. As such, N.S. does not have a criminal record in relation to these charges.

R. v. O., Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto, Ontario:
The accused, O, was charged with possession of marijuana and failure to comply with a recognizance. He was found to be in an area where he had previously been arrested in contravention of his bail. When the police approached him he was seen to throw a plastic bag containing marijuana to the ground. Mr. Kostman was successful in having the charges withdrawn after a successful Charter of Rights application for “unreasonable delay”.

R. v. C.V., Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto, Ontario:
The accused, C.V., was charged with possession of a controlled substance contrary to section 4(3) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The allegations against C.V. were that in May 2006, the accused attended at a Tim Horton’s parking lot and parked his vehicle beside an unmarked police van. He was observed to pull a small bag out of his pocket containing powder cocaine. C.V. entered a guilty plea to possession of cocaine. Mr. Pyzer successfully argued that in the circumstances C.V. should receive a conditional discharge. Accordingly, C.V. has no criminal record, and may accurately state that he has never been convicted of a criminal offence. This was an excellent result, since most individuals who are found guilty of a cocaine-related offence get a criminal conviction.

R. v. R., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto, Ontario:
The accused, R, was charged with possession of a firearm and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. R had escaped from a half-way house and had created a crack lab in his apartment. The police became aware of where R was staying and made a forced entry into his apartment. R climbed down the side of the building by moving from one apartment balcony to balcony. When the police caught up with R he was attempting to hide on a first floor balcony. Mr. Kostman successfully argued that the search of the apartment was illegal and that there was a breach of R’s right to counsel upon arrest. All of the evidence, including a substantial amount of crack cocaine and loaded firearms was excluded from the trial. The charges were stayed.

R. v. B., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 361 University Ave., Toronto, Ontario:
The accused, B, was charged with possession of a controlled drug (cocaine) for the Purpose of Trafficking”. It was alleged that he had attempted to abandon a cache of cocaine upon the arrival of the police. Two police officers testified they observed B in possession of the cocaine. Mr. Kostman represented N at trial, and successfully argued that the police were mistaken in their observations. N was acquitted.

R. v. G., Ontario Court of Justice, 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton, Ontario:
The accused, G was charged with Possession of Narcotic and Assault Police. The charges were stayed after successful Charter of Rights application challenging the propriety of G’s arrest and the search of the motor vehicle.

R. v. S., Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto, Ontario:
The accused, S, was charged with possession for the purpose (marijuana, ecstasy and cocaine). Mr. Kostman was successful in having all charges withdrawn on the basis that S (the passenger/girlfriend of the driver of motor vehicle where the drugs were found) had no knowledge or control of the drugs.

R. v. S., Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto, Ontario:
The accused, S, was driving a motor vehicle in the Entertainment District. The police alleged that there was the odour of freshly burned cannabis emanating from the vehicle. A search of the vehicle revealed approximately two ounces of marijuana packaged in two gram packages. The police also found a ceremonial sword in a knapsack on the back seat of the vehicle. Approximately $6,000.00 in American and Canadian currency was found in the vehicle. Mr. Kostman was successful in having all the charges withdrawn after S completed 50 hours of community service. The money that was seized as proceeds of crime was returned.

R. v. L., Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto, Ontario:
The accused, L, a young person, was found in possession of approximately two ounces of marijuana which he admitted was for the purposes of sale. He was charged with possession for the purposes of trafficking (Marijuana). Mr. Kostman acted for L. The charge was withdrawn after L completed counseling for drug issues.

R. v. M.H. Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto:
The accused M.H. was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. The allegations against M.H. were that he engaged in a hand-to-hand transaction for the purchase of crack cocaine with an undercover officer of the Toronto Police Service. Mr. Pyzer was successful in having all of the charges against M.H. withdrawn prior to Trial. As such, M.H. has no criminal record in relation to these charges nor was there any finding of guilt made against him.

R. v. N.C. Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto:
The accused, N.C. was charged with possession of heroin possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking x2, possession of cocaine and possession of marihuana. The Toronto Police Service received information in regards to selling of narcotics at a specific apartment in Toronto. Officers then applied for a search warrant for the apartment. The police attended at the address entered the apartment and located large quantities of heroin, cocaine and marijuana as well as drug trafficking paraphernalia. N.C. was arrested just outside of the apartment and her personal belongings including identification and clothing were found inside the apartment. Mr. Pyzer was successful in having all of the charges against N.C. withdrawn prior to Trial. As such, N.C. has no criminal record in relation to these charges nor was there any finding of guilt made against her.

R. v. E.W. Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto:
The Accused, E.W. was charged with possession of crack cocaine and breach of a recognizance. The allegations against E.W. were that he was observed by police to reach into his pocket left jacket pocket with is left hand and remove a plastic baggy containing crack cocaine and throw it to the ground. At Trial, Mr. Pyzer brought an application to exclude the drugs arguing that the accused’s rights under the Charter were breached as a result of an arbitrary detention and illegal search. The accused was acquitted on both charges before the Court.

R. v. D.G. Ontario Court of Justice, 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton:
The Accused, D.G. was charged with possession of marijuana and breach of an undertaking. The allegations against D.G. were that he was observed to be in the company of two female friends. Members of the Peel Regional Police subsequently detained, investigated and searched the accused and allegedly found 3.7 grams of Marihuana on his person. At Trial, Mr. Pyzer brought an application to exclude the drugs arguing that the accused’s rights under the Charter were breached as a result of an arbitrary detention and illegal search. Prior to the Trial commencing, The Assistant Crown Attorney agreed to withdraw all charges against the accused.

R. v. D.S., Ontario Court of Justice, 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton:
The accused, D.S., was charged with possession of a controlled substance contrary to section 4(3) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and possession of stolen property. The allegations against D.S. were that three of his friends were observed by police to be in possession of a stolen vehicle. Once spotted by the police, the individuals fled the vehicle and were chased by police. During the chase, the officers stated that they observed the accused pull a bag of marihuana out of his pocket and drop it on the ground behind him. On the morning of Trial, Mr. Pyzer was successful in having all of the charges against D.S. withdrawn as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

R. v. M.P., Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto:
The accused. M.P. was charged with possession of marijuana. Mr. Pyzer acted for him and was successful in having the charge against M.P. stayed at the request of the Federal Prosecution Service of Canada. M.P. did not have to perform community service, make a charitable donation or obtain any counseling.

R. v. M.B., Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto:
The accused, M.B., was charged with the offences of possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime. The allegations against M.B. were that he was situated in Toronto’s Kensington Market when he was observed to conduct a hand-to-hand transaction with another individual involving a quantity of marihuana. Mr. Pyzer represented M.B. and was successful in having all of the charges against M.B. withdrawn at the request of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada prior to setting a trial date.

R. v. K.S., Ontario Court of Justice, Orillia:
K.S. was charged with possession of hashish. The allegations against K.S. were that he was a passenger in a vehicle that was in a motor vehicle incident. The police attended at the scene of the accident and observed the motor vehicle laying on its roof and the vehicle demolished. The two occupants of the motor vehicle were investigated by members of the Ontario Provincial Police and found to be in possession of a small package that contained 3.5g of hashish. Both accused allegedly confessed to the investigating officer that the hashish belonged to them. Mr. Pyzer represented K.S. and was successful in having the charge against him withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. As such, K.S. does not have a criminal record as a result of this charge.

R. v. M.D. Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto:
M.D. was charged with possession of crack cocaine and obstruct police. The allegations against M.D. were that as a result of an undercover police investigation he was located in a suspected crack house. Following a transaction for crack cocaine with an undercover police officer, police barged into a residence and chased the suspected drug dealer upstairs. M.D. is alleged to have blocked the officers upon their entrance into the residence by body checking them. Upon his arrest he was found to be in possession of a quantity of crack cocaine. Mr. Pyzer represented M.D. and was successful in having the charge against him withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. As such, M.D. does not have a criminal record as a result of this charge.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RECOGNIZANCE / UNDERTAKING:

R. v. M.S., Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough, Ontario:
The accused, M.S., was charged with failure to comply with a recognizance (bail order). The allegations were that in March 2007, while bound by a curfew between the hours of 10:00 pm and 6:00, M.S. was observed by the police to be in a vehicle at 4:30 am with a female occupant. Mr. Pyzer was successful in having all of the charges against M.S. withdrawn.

R. v. J.R., Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto, Ontario:
The accused, J.R., was charged with failure to comply with a recognizance (peace bond). The allegation against J.R. was that he was found at a residence specifically prohibited in his bail order. Mr. Pyzer convinced the Crown Attorney to withdraw the charge.

R. v. R.E., Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough, Ontario:
The accused, R.E., a young offender, was charged with failure to comply with a recognizance (bail order) and failure to comply with an undertaking given to a police officer. The allegations against R.E. were that he was investigated by the police while he was out of his residence past his curfew. Mr. Pyzer was successful in having all of the charges against R.E. withdrawn.

FAILURE TO REMAIN AT THE SCENE OF AN ACCCIDENT:

R. v. M.W., Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton, Ontario:
M.W. was charged with failing to stop at the scene of an accident contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Pyzer represented M.W. and was successful in having the charge against him withdrawn upon his entering a plea of guilt to a related charge under the Highway Traffic Act. This was an amazing result for M.W. as he was able to resolve his matters without obtaining a criminal record, which was imperative for his future employment and citizenship status.

FORCIBLE CONFINEMENT:

R. v. J.S., Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough, Ontario:
The accused, J.S., a young offender, was charged with forcible confinement, theft under $5,000 and assault. The allegations against J.S. were that he was residing at a group home when he got into an altercation with one of the group home workers. It was alleged that the accused assaulted and forcibly confined the group home worker, and then stole property belonging to the group home. Mr. Pyzer was successful in having all of the charges against J.S. withdrawn.

FORCIBLE ENTRY:

R. v. A.C., Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto, Ontario:
The accused, A.C., had twenty-four previous convictions, and was charged with forcible entry, mischief and two counts of breaching her probation. The allegations against A.C. were that she and her co-accused forced their way into an apartment unit by smashing through the windows. Once inside it was alleged that the accused assaulted one of the occupants with a weapon causing bodily harm. Mr. Pyzer successfully got all of the charges against A.C. withdrawn on the morning of her trial and she was released from custody unconditionally.

FORCIBLE ENTRY:

FRAUD:

R. v. T., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Toronto, Ontario:
The accused, T, was an entrepreneur who had received a cheque in the amount of $50,000 from a Nigerian investor. When he deposited the cheque in his bank account it was revealed that the cheque was a forgery. Mr. Kostman represented T at trial. He was acquitted on the basis that although the document was a forgery, T had no criminal intent, to commit a fraud and genuinely believed that the funds were legitimate.

R. v. J.H., Ontario Court of Justice, College Park, Toronto:
The accused, J.H. was charged with one count of obtaining transportation by fraud. The allegations against her were that she was a passenger in a taxi when she had a fare dispute with the driver. J.H. was said to have been belligerent and aggressive towards the taxi driver who called the police. The police attended and their investigation revealed that J.H. had no ability to pay the taxi driver. Mr. Pyzer represented J.H. and was successful in having the charge against her withdrawn prior to setting a trial in this matter. As such, J.H. does not have a criminal record as a result of these allegations.

R. v. J.P. Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto:
J.P. was an employee at a pharmacy in Toronto. Her employer received information that J.P. was defrauding the pharmacy by failing to hand in refund slips and debit card refunds. Further investigation revealed that J.P. was crediting these funds to her own bank account at the Bank of Montreal. The accused was arrested and investigated by members of the Toronto Regional Police and gave an inculpatory statement admitting to the accusations against her. As a result, she was charged with Fraud Under $5,000. Mr. Pyzer represented J.P. and was successful in having the charge against her withdrawn prior to setting a Trial date. As such, J.P. does not have a criminal record as a result of this charge.

MISCHIEF:

R. v. P.K. Ontario Court of Justice, 50 Eagle Street West, Newmarket:
P.K. was charged with one count of Mischief under $5,000. The allegations against P.K. were that following an evening of drinking, he smashed the windshield of a green Honda Civic by elbowing the windshield. P.K. was seen to attempt to flee the scene however he was apprehended by members of the York Regional Police Service within meters of the offence. Mr. Pyzer represented P.K. and was successful in having the charge against him withdrawn. As such, P.K. made no admission of guilt in relation to these allegations and has no criminal record as a result of this charge.

R. v. D.M., Ontario Court of Justice, 1000 Finch, Toronto, Ontario:
The accused, D.M., was charged with domestic assault and mischief under $5,000. The Complainant and D.M. had been in a dating relationship for approximately eight years. At the time of the incident, the complainant was thirteen weeks pregnant with D.M.’s child. The complainant alleged that during the course of an argument over suspected infidelity, D.M. pushed her head into a wall destroyed her cell phone. Mr. Pyzer successfully represented D.M. at trial and D.M. was found innocent of both charges.

MURDER:

OBSTRUCT POLICE:

R. v. J.H., Ontario Court of Justice, College Park, Toronto:
J.H. was charged with one count of obstructing a peace officer in the lawful execution of his duty. The allegations against her were that she interfered with a police investigation by falsely identifying the wanted party as being someone other than who he was. It was also alleged that she interfered with the police by calling the suspect on his phone and advising him to run as the police were on their way to arrest him. Mr. Pyzer represented J.H. and was successful in having the charge withdrawn the morning of trial at the request of the Crown Attorney’s Office.

R. v. M.D. Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto:
M.D. was charged with obstruct police and possession of crack cocaine. The allegations against M.D. were that as a result of an undercover police investigation he was located in a suspected crack house. Following a transaction for crack cocaine with an undercover police officer, police barged into a residence and chased the suspected drug dealer upstairs. M.D. was alleged to have blocked the officer’s upon their entrance into the residence by body checking them. Upon his arrest he was found to be in possession of a quantity of crack cocaine. Mr. Pyzer represented M.D. and was successful in having the charge against him withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. As such, M.D. does not have a criminal record as a result of this charge.

R. v. E.W., Ontario Court of Justice, 530 Queensway West, Simcoe:
The accused, E.W., was charged with obstruct police. The allegations against E.W. were that he was stopped by the Ontario Provincial Police pursuant to a Highway Traffic Act Stop. E.W. was said to have been aggressive towards the officer and repeatedly reached into the officer’s cruiser attempting to retrieve his documents from the officer’s vehicle. After being cautioned multiple times by the officer, E.W. was arrested for obstructing a peace officer in the lawful execution of his duty. Mr. Pyzer represented M.D. and was successful in having the charge against him withdrawn the morning of his scheduled trial date.

OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT INSURANCE:

R. v. C.V.H., Ontario Court of Justice, Old City Hall, Toronto:
The accused, C.V.H. was charged with operating a motor vehicle without insurance contrary to section 2(1)(a) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act. The allegations against C.V.H. were that the accused was observed by members of the Toronto Police Service in her motor vehicle that was parked directly in front of 11 Division in Toronto. C.V.H. was observed to be sitting in the driver’s seat of the vehicle while the engine was running and appeared to be passed out. The accused was woken up and asked for identification. The accused could not provide a driver’s license and could not provide valid insurance for the vehicle. The accused was arrested and found to be in possession of a quantity of heroin. Mr. Pyzer represented C.V.H. at trial and was successful in having the charge against her withdrawn at the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

PROPERTY RELATED OFFENCES:

R. v. A.B., Ontario Court of Justice, 1000 Finch Avenue West, Toronto:
The accused, A.B., was charged with the offences of possession of property obtained by crime under $5,000 and breach of probation. The allegations were that A.B. was arrested in the immediate vicinity of a stolen vehicle and in the company of a female passenger whom the police observed exiting the vehicle. Mr. Pyzer was successful in having all of the charges withdrawn against A.B.

R. v. D.S., Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton, Ontario:
The accused, D.S., was charged with possession of a controlled substance contrary to section 4(3) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Possession of Stolen Property. The allegations against D.S. were that he and three of friends were observed by police to be in possession of a stolen vehicle. Once spotted by the police, the individuals fled the vehicle and were chased by police. During the chase, the officers stated that they observed the accused pull a bag of marihuana out of his pocket and drop it on the ground behind him. On the morning of Trial, Mr. Pyzer was successful in having all of the charges against D.S. withdrawn as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

R. v. T.Y., Ontario Court of Justice, 311 Jarvis Street, Toronto:
T.Y. a young offender, was charged with possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 and three counts of possession of property obtained by crime under $5,000. Toronto Police Service Vice Officers were conducting an investigation into the theft of high-end motor vehicles within the Greater Toronto Area. As a result of undercover investigation and surveillance by The Toronto Police Service the officers observed T.Y. and his two co-accused loading stolen motor vehicle engines into the rear of a red Honda Civic. All three accused were placed under arrest. Mr. Pyzer represented T.Y. and was successful in having all of the charges against him withdrawn prior to setting a Trial date. As such, T.Y. has no 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. 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. 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.

ROBBERY:

R. v. Z., Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton, Ontario:
The accused, Z, was charged with Robbery after she and two males accosted a young person at a TTC station and stole money from him. Mr. Kostman assisted Z by negotiating a guilty plea to a lesser charge of theft under. Z received a conditional discharge and has no criminal record.

R. v. M.D., Ontario Court of Justice, Etobicoke, Ontario:
The accused, M.D. was charged with robbery with a firearm, break & enter with intent, use imitation firearm, weapons dangerous, disguise with intent and pointing a firearm. The allegations were that M.D. and her two co-accused broke into a residence and robbed the two female occupants while wearing disguises and in possession of firearms and an axe. Mr. Pyzer was able to convince the Crown Attorneys’ office that they should not proceed with the prosecution. All charges were withdrawn.

R. v. J.B., Superior Court of Justice, 362 University Ave., Toronto, Ontario:
The accused, J.B., was charged with three counts of robbery with a firearm and use firearm while committing an indictable offence. The allegations were that J.B. and 3 other individuals robbed three separate restaurants with firearms. J.B. was arrested in possession of the keys to a motor vehicle that was used in connection with one of the robberies. Two firearms were found in the vehicle at the time of J.B.’s arrest. Mr. Pyzer represented J.B. at trial. J.B. was acquitted of all charges as a result of successful applications challenging the statements’ admissibility on the basis of voluntariness and a breach of his rights to counsel.

R. v. J.M., Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough, Ontario:
J.M. was charged with two counts of robbery. The allegations against J.M. and her two co-accused were that while at a social gathering with several other individuals, the three accused got into a verbal argument with the Complainant which progressed to a physical beating and culminated in the Complainant being robbed of her belongings. It was alleged by the Crown Attorney’s Office that all three accused were equally responsible for the assaults and theft. Mr. Pyzer represented J.M. and was successful in having all of the charges withdrawn at the request of the Crown Attorney’s Office. The two co-accused were not as fortunate. They pled guilty to the charges before the Court and now have criminal records.

R. v. S.I., Ontario Court of Justice, 311 Jarvis Street, Toronto:
The accused, S.I., was charged with robbery, threatening death and assaulting a police officer. The allegations against S.I. were that he was one of four youths who swarmed another individual outside of an apartment building and robbed the complainant of his cell phone and cash while armed with a knife. It was also alleged that once S.I. was arrested and transported to 12 Division by members of the Toronto Police Service that he assaulted one of the officers by pushing him in the chest and threatening to come back to 12 Division once he was released and take care of the officer. Mr.. Pyzer represented S.I. at Trial and was successful in having all of the charges against him withdrawn the morning of trial.

R. v. N.A. Ontario Court of Justice, Oshawa:
The accused, N.A. was charged with robbery as a result of an incident that occurred in Oshawa. The allegations against N.A. were that he robbed another male of his jacket and violently beat this male up outside of a Coffee Time Restaurant in front of several witnesses. The victim in this case was seriously injured and was transported to the hospital for treatment. N.A. was arrested near the scene and was held in jail for almost three weeks until Mr. Pyzer was able to get the charges withdrawn. Mr. Pyzer convinced the Assistant Crown Attorney that N.A. was not the person responsible for the robbery or the beating.

R. v. L.H., Ontario Court of Justice, College Park, Toronto:
The accused, L.H., was charged with the offence of robbery while armed with a firearm which carries a minimum sentence of four years imprisonment. The allegations against L.H. were that she and her co-accused approached a male and offered to sell him narcotics. When the male responded no, L.H. and her co-accused allegedly blocked him in an alley and robbed him of his money while armed with a silver and black pistol. Mr. Pyzer represented L.H. at her Preliminary Inquiry in the Ontario Court of Justice and after a lengthy hearing was successful in having the charges against her dismissed at the fierce opposition of the Crown Attorney’s Office.

SEXUAL ASSAULT/ SEXUAL INTERFERENCE:

R. v. S.F. Ontario Court of Justice, College Park, Toronto:
The accused, S.F. was charged with one count of sexual assault. The Complainant in this matter was S.F.’s baby-mother. It was alleged that S.F. forced sexual intercourse upon the Complainant and raped her. S.F. adamantly maintained his innocence with respect to these allegations. Mr. Pyzer represented S.F. and was successful in having the charge against him withdrawn at the request of the Crown Attorney’s.

R. v. A., Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto, Oshawa:
The accused A was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference. It was alleged that A sexually assaulted his twelve-year-old niece by touching her inappropriately and sticking his tongue in her mouth. Mr. Kostman represented A. He was acquitted after trial.

R. v. W., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 361 University Ave., Toronto:
The accused, W, was charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm and forcible confinement. It was alleged that W forcibly confined and anally raped the complainant, a co-tenant in the apartment. Mr. Kostman challenged the prosecution arguing that there was an “unreasonable delay” contrary to section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, between the date of the offence and the trial date. The application was successful. These very serious charges were stayed.

R. v. G.N. Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton:
G.N. was charged with two counts of sexual assault, two counts of invitation to sexual touching and two counts of sexual interference. G.N.’s wife contacted the police and advised them that she believed that G.N. had sexually assaulted their two young daughters. The allegations against G.N. were that while bathing his two young daughters, ages three and four, he advised them that a good way to keep water out of their mouths while bathing, was to put Daddy’s penis in their mouths. Mr. Pyzer represented G.N. during a two-day Preliminary Inquiry in which Mr. Pyzer was successful in having the charges against him dismissed. Mr. Pyzer successfully argued that there was no reliable evidence before the Court on which a properly instructed judge and jury could convict. As such, Mr. Nash has absolutely no criminal record in relation to these charges.

R. v. A.L. Ontario Court of Justice, 1000 Finch Avenue West, Toronto:
A.L. was charged with one count of sexual assault and one count of simple assault. The allegations against A.L. were that he was at his girlfriend’s apartment and jumped on the Complainant, punched her in the face and then forced her to engage in sexual relations. Mr. Pyzer represented the accused at his Preliminary Inquiry in the Ontario Court of Justice and was successful in having the charges against the accused dismissed. As a result, the accused does not have a criminal record as a result of this incident.

R. v. S.B. Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton:
The accused, S.B. was charged with sexual assault contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. The allegations against S.B. were that he repeatedly assaulted a co-worker for a sexual purpose by repeatedly groping, hugging and kissing her. Mr. Pyzer represented S.B. and was successful in having the Crown Attorney’s Office accept a plea to the lesser and included offence of assault and not purse the charge of sexual assault that was before the Court. S.B. who had no prior criminal record was granted a conditional discharge and as a result of these charges does not have a criminal record.

THEFT:

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.

THREATENING DEATH / BODILY HARM:

R. v. R.S. and K.S., Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough, Ontario:
R.S. and K.S. were jointly charged with six counts of threatening death contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. It was alleged that R.S. and K.S. had contacted the complainants by phone and threatened to kidnap and kill them as a result of an ongoing dispute between the families. Mr. Kostman and Mr. Pyzer represented R.S. and K.S. at Trial and successfully defended the charges against them. K.S. and R.S. were acquitted of all charges and as such there was no finding if guilt in relation to these allegations and neither R.S. nor K.S. have criminal records as a result of this incident.

R. v. R.C., Ontario Court of Justice, Etobicoke, Ontario:
R.C. was charged with threatening bodily harm and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. The allegations against R.C. were that during the course of an altercation she held a knife to the complainant’s face and threatened to kill her. Mr. Pyzer represented R.C. and was successful in having the charges against her withdrawn prior to trial. As such there was no finding if guilt in relation to these allegations and R.C. does not have a criminal record as a result of this incident.

R. v. D.W., Ontario Court of Justice, Etobicoke, Ontario:
The accused, D.W. was charged with threatening death. The allegations were that D.W. threatened to kill his girlfriend’s mother. Mr. Pyzer successfully had all of the charges against D.W. withdrawn.

R. v. R.V., Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto, Ontario:
The accused, R.V., was charged with two counts of threatening death and one count of assault. The allegations against R.V. were that she threatened and assaulted the woman with whom her husband was romantically involved. Mr. Pyzer was successful in getting all of the charges against R.V. withdrawn.

WEAPONS RELATED OFFENCES:

R. v. R.C., Ontario Court of Justice, Etobicoke, Ontario:
R.C. was charged with threatening bodily harm and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. The allegations against R.C. were that during the course of an altercation she held a knife to the complainant’s face and threatened to kill her. Mr. Pyzer represented R.C. and was successful in having the charges against her withdrawn prior to trial. As such there was no finding if guilt in relation to these allegations and R.C. have criminal records as a result of this incident.

RECENT CASE SUMMARIES

Toronto Criminal Lawyers Areas of Practice

Toronto Criminal Lawyers
Areas of Practice