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.
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 All charges were withdrawn.
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.
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 Pyzer represented J.M., and was successful in having all of the charges withdrawn at the request of the crown attorney’s office.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.
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.
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.
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.