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 Pyzer was successful in having all of the charges withdrawn against A.B.,
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 Pyzer was successful in having all of the charges against D.S., withdrawn as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
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 Pyzer represented T.Y., and was successful in having all of the charges against him withdrawn prior to setting a trial date.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.
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the diversion program that consisted of a charitable donation and a letter of apology, the charge against B.P., was withdrawn at the request of the crown attorney’s office.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.
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.
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.N., a young offender, was charged with one count of possession of property obtained by crime under $5000. The allegations against R.N. were that he and four of his friends were observed attempting to break into cars and upon being interrupted by the complainant, they ran away. The police, responded to the complainants call and while searching the surrounding area located five young offenders matching the descriptions given by the complainant. They were alleged to be in possession of property they had obtained through crime. During the police investigation the accused R.N. made inculpatory statements, acknowledging that the property he possessed in his bag had been obtained by crime. Jonathan Pyzer successfully represented R.N.. During pre-trial discussions, Mr. Pyzer was able to convince the Crown to withdraw R.N’s charge upon his completion of the diversion program. R.N. was able to avoid a criminal record.