ASSAULT:

R. v. J.S. (June 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
The accused, J.S., a young offender, was charged with assault. The allegations against J.S. were that in January 2007, 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 Pyzer was successful in having all of the charges against J.S. withdrawn.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. (February 2007) Ontario Court of Justice
The accused, B, a young person, and two friends, allegedly were involved in an altercation with a fourth youth on school property. B wrote a written apology to the Complainant. Mr. Kostman was successful in having the charge against B withdrawn.

R. v. V. (February 2007) Ontario Court of Justice
The accused, V, 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 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 On the trial date, the charge was withdrawn.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. 

BAIL HEARINGS:

R. v. G.N. (September 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
The accused, G.N. was charged with Sexual Assault (x2), Invitation to Sexual Touching (x2) and Sexual Interference (x2). The allegations were that the accused brought his two sexually interfered with his daughters. Mr. Pyzer was successful in getting the accused released on bail despite the Crown Attorney’s strenuous objections.

R. v. M.D. (April 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
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 in December 2006, 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 advocated aggressively on behalf of M.D. and was successful in getting her released on bail despite the Crown Attorney’s strenuous objections.

R. v. J.B. (November 2006) Superior Court of Justice:
The accused, J.B. was charged with robbery with Robbery with a Firearm (x3) and Use Firearm while Committing an Indictable Offence (x3). The allegations were that in May, 2005, 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.

CRIMINAL HARASSMENT:

R. v. C.C. (May 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
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.

DANGEROUS OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE:

R. v. R.E. (May 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
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 in June 2006, 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, it was alleged that 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 as 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. (September 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
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.  (May 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
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. (August 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
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 on May 21, 2007, 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. W (June 2006) (Ontario Court of Justice:
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 (February 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
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. (November 2006) Ontario Court of Justice:
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.                      

DRINKING & DRIVING:

R. v. P. (October 2007) Ontario Court of Justice
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. (November 2005)Ontario Court of Justice
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. (August 2005) Ontario Court of Justice:    
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. (June 2005) Ontario Court of Justice:
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. (July 2007) Ontario Court of Justice
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. O. (May 2007) Ontario Court of Justice
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. (July 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
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 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. (February 2004) Ontario Superior Court
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 (August 2007) Ontario Superior Court
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. (March 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
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 (March 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
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. (May 2006) Ontario Court of Justice:
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. (May 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
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.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RECOGNIZANCE / UNDERTAKING:

R. v. M.S. (October 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
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. (September 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
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. (July 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
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 in February 2007, 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.

FORCIBLE CONFINEMENT:

R. v. J.S. (June 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
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 in November 2006, 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. (June 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
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.

FRAUD:

R. v. T. (September 2005) Ontario Superior Court:
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.

POSSESION OF PROPERTY OBTAINED BY CRIME:

R. v. A.B. (September 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
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 on July 22, 2007, 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.

ROBBERY:

R. v. Z. (May 2006) Ontario Court of Justice
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. (April 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
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. (November 2006) Superior Court of Justice:
The accused, J.B. was charged with robbery with Robbery with a Firearm (x3) and Use Firearm while Committing an Indictable Offence (x3). The allegations were that in May, 2005, 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.

SEXUAL ASSAULT/ SEXUAL INTERFERENCE:

R. v. A. (May 2006.) Ontario Court of Justice
The accused A was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference. It was alleged that A sexually assaulted his 12 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. (March 2005) Superior Court of Justice
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.

THREATENING DEATH:

R. v. D.W. (April 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
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. (May 2007) Ontario Court of Justice:
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.