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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
J.M. was charged with more than ten offences, including: assault with a weapon, possession of incendiary material, disguise with intent, break and enter into a dwelling, unlawfully in a dwelling, administer a noxious thing, uttering threats to a person, uttering threats to damage property and possession of a firearm or ammunition contrary to a prohibition order. The allegations against J.M. were that he forcefully entered into a private residential home while masked and armed with a samaurai sword, a hatchet and gasoline. He is then alleged to have attacked one of the residents of the home and poured gasoline throughout the house with the intention of burning it down. The accused was arrested on scene and taken into police custody. The Crown’s Office was opposing J.M.’s release due to the serious nature of the allegations and his lengthy criminal record which included multiple related entries for weapons offences and violent offences. Jonathan Pyzer represented J.M. at his bail hearing and was succesful in getting him released. This was not an easy fight but Mr. Pyzer was able to convince the Court that the accused could remain in the community pending a trial of this matter and that the right to a reasonable bail and the presumption of innocence should prevail in light of the propsed plan of release.